Now with the previous patch, __sk_mem_raise_allocated() considers
the memory pressure of both global and the socket's memcg on a func-
wide level, making the condition of memcg's pressure in question
redundant.

Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
---
 net/core/sock.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
index 801df091e37a..86735ad2f903 100644
--- a/net/core/sock.c
+++ b/net/core/sock.c
@@ -3020,9 +3020,15 @@ int __sk_mem_raise_allocated(struct sock *sk, int size, int amt, int kind)
 	if (sk_has_memory_pressure(sk)) {
 		u64 alloc;
 
-		if (!sk_under_memory_pressure(sk))
+		if (!sk_under_global_memory_pressure(sk))
 			return 1;
+
 		alloc = sk_sockets_allocated_read_positive(sk);
+
+		/* If under global pressure, allow the sockets that are below
+		 * average memory usage to raise, trying to be fair among all
+		 * the sockets under global constrains.
+		 */
 		if (sk_prot_mem_limits(sk, 2) > alloc *
 		    sk_mem_pages(sk->sk_wmem_queued +
 				 atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc) +
-- 
2.37.3

On Tue, 2023-05-30 at 19:40 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> Now with the previous patch, __sk_mem_raise_allocated() considers
> the memory pressure of both global and the socket's memcg on a func-
> wide level, 

Since the "previous patch" (aka "sock: Consider memcg pressure when
raising sockmem") has been dropped in this series revision, I guess
this patch should be dropped, too?

Is this targeting the 'net-next' tree or the 'net' one? please specify
the target tree into the subj line. I think we could consider net-next
for this series, given the IMHO not trivial implications.

Cheers,

Paolo

On 6/1/23 5:10 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-05-30 at 19:40 +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>> Now with the previous patch, __sk_mem_raise_allocated() considers
>> the memory pressure of both global and the socket's memcg on a func-
>> wide level,
> 
> Since the "previous patch" (aka "sock: Consider memcg pressure when
> raising sockmem") has been dropped in this series revision, I guess
> this patch should be dropped, too?

Yes indeed, these two patches should go together. Sorry for my
carelessness.

> 
> Is this targeting the 'net-next' tree or the 'net' one? please specify
> the target tree into the subj line. I think we could consider net-next
> for this series, given the IMHO not trivial implications.

Got it, I will resend this series based on net-next.

Thanks!
	Abel