Yafang Shao writes:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:09 AM Chris Down chris@chrisdown.name 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? :-)