Re: [PATCH REBASED] mm, memcg: Make scan aggression always exclude protection

[Chris Down]

Michal Hocko writes:
> Maybe I am missing something so correct me if I am wrong but the new
> calculation actually means that we always allow to scan even min
> protected memcgs right?

We check if the memcg is min protected as a precondition for coming into this 
function at all, so this generally isn't possible. See the mem_cgroup_protected 
MEMCG_PROT_MIN check in shrink_node.

(Of course, it's possible we race with going within protection thresholds 
again, but this patch doesn't make that any better or worse than the previous 
situation.)