On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:37 PM Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yafang Shao writes:
> >On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:09 AM Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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? :-)
Keeping the mem_cgroup_protected() as-is is my suggestion. Anyway I
think it is bad to put memory.{emin, elow} here and there.
If we don't have any better idea by now, just putting all the
references of memory.{emin, elow} into one
wrapper(mem_cgroup_protected()) is the reasonable solution.
--
Thanks
Yafang
