On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There is a nicer alternative, instead of failing the file access, > an overflow event can be queued. I sent a patch for that and Jan > agreed to the concept, but thought we should let user opt-in for this > change: > https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=150944704716447&w=2 > > So IMO, if user opts-in for OVERFLOW instead of ENOMEM, > charging the listener memcg would be non controversial. > Otherwise, I cannot say that starting to charge the listener memgc > for events won't break any application. > Thanks Amir, I will send out patches soon for directed charging for fsnotify. Also are you planning to work on the opt-in overflow for the above case? Should I wait for your patch? thanks, Shakeel
