On Wed 20-07-22 10:49:53, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 2:24 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > I think what we are missing here is > > - explain that this doesn't have any effect on existing users of > > vmpressure user interface because that is cgroup v1 and memory.reclaim > > is v2 feature. This is a trivial statement but quite useful for future > > readers of this commit > > - explain the effect on the networking layer and typical usecases > > memory.reclaim is used for currently and ideally document that. > > I agree with the above two points (Yosry, please address those) but > the following third point is orthogonal and we don't really need to > have an answer for this patch to be accepted. > > > - how are we going to deal with users who would really want to use > > memory.reclaim interface as a replacement for existing hard/high > > memory reclaim? Is that even something that the interface is intended > > for? > > I do agree that this question is important. Nowadays I am looking at > this from a different perspective and use-case. More concretely how > (and why) to replace vmpressure based network throttling for cgroup > v2. I will start a separate thread for that discussion. I think we should be good to document this side effect for now. If you have a plan to change to vmpressure based throttling then only better. But one way or the other impact of the memory.reclaim interface on netwroking should be documented properly. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
