On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:32:10PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > I guess it boils down to which we want: > (a) Limit the amount of memory processes in a cgroup can be pinned/locked. > (b) Limit the amount of memory charged to a cgroup that can be pinned/locked. > > The proposal is doing (a), I suppose if this was part of memcg it > would be (b), right? > > I am not saying it should be one or the other, I am just making sure > my understanding is clear. I don't quite understand what the distinction would mean in practice. It's just odd to put locked memory in a separate controller from interface POV. Thanks. -- tejun
