Hello, On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 11:46:41AM -0700, Mina Almasry wrote: > An interface like cgroup.sticky.[bpf/tmpfs/..] would work for us > similar to tmpfs memcg= mount option. I would maybe rename it to > cgroup.charge_for.[bpf/tmpfs/etc] or something. So, I'm not a fan because having this in cgroupfs would create the expectation that these resources can be moved across cgroups dynamically (and that's the only way the interface can be useful, right?). I'd much prefer something a lot more minimal - e.g. temporarily allow assuming an ancestor identity while creating a resource or sth along that line, and to add something like that, I think we need pretty strong arguments for why it can't be handled through cgroup layering in userspace. Thanks. -- tejun
