[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200729140537.13345-3-mkoutny@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:05:36 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] docs: cgroup: Note about sibling relative reclaim protection
Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
---
Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
index 94bdff4f9e09..47f9f056e66f 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
@@ -1467,6 +1467,10 @@ targets ancestors of A, the effective protection of B is capped by the
protection value configured for A (and any other intermediate ancestors between
A and the target).
+To express indifference about relative sibling protection, it is suggested to
+use memory_recursiveprot. Configuring all descendants of a parent with finite
+protection to "max" works but it may unnecessarily skew memory.events:low
+field.
Memory Ownership
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
2.27.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists