[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZLmRlTej8Tm82kXG@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 09:57:09 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
"T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] memory recharging for offline memcgs
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 11:35:15AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> It could also be argued that if you don't want to lose control over a
> set of resources, then maybe don't delete their control domain while
> they are still alive and in use. For example, when restarting a
> workload, and the new instance is expected to have largely the same
> workingset, consider reusing the cgroup instead of making a new one.
Or just create a nesting layer so that there's a cgroup which represents the
persistent resources and a nested cgroup instance inside representing the
current instance.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists