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? :-)
