On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > Don't wait for me. You can pick up my simple patch if you like to implement "opt-in for charging listener memcg" it would make sense with that change. Thanks, Amir.
