On Thu 18-06-20 13:37:43, Chris Down wrote:
> Yafang Shao writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:09 AM Chris Down <ch...@chrisdown.name> wrote:
> > >
> > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > >After this patch applied the reported issue got fixed.
> > >
> > > Great! Thank you Naresh and Michal for helping to get to the bottom of
> > > this :-)
> > >
> > > I'll send out a new version tomorrow with the fixes applied and both of
> > > you
> > > credited in the changelog for the detection and fix.
> >
> > As we have already found that the usage around memory.{emin, elow} has
> > many limitations, I think memory.{emin, elow} should be used for
> > memcg-tree internally only, that means they can only be used to
> > calculate the protection of a memcg in a specified memcg-tree but
> > should not be exposed to other MM parts.
>
> I agree that the current semantics are mentally taxing and we should
> generally avoid exposing the implementation details outside of memcg where
> possible. Do you have a suggested rework? :-)
I would really prefer to do that work on top of the fixes we (used to)
have in mmotm (with the fixup).
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
