On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:53:08AM -0400, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The central try_charge() function charges recursively all the way up > to and including the root. Except for use_hiearchy=0 (which is the case here as Richard wrote). The reparenting is hence somewhat incompatible with new_parent.use_hiearchy=0 :-/ > We should clean this up one way or another: either charge the root or > don't, but do it consistently. I agree this'd be good to unify. One upside of excluding root memcg from charging is that users are spared from the charging overhead when memcg tree is not created. (Actually, I thought that was the reason for this exception.) Michal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
