[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251110193638.623208-3-mkoutny@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 20:36:34 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Natalie Vock <natalie.vock@....de>,
Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...khorst.se>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: [PATCH RESEND 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 a6def773a3072..be3d805a929ef 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
@@ -1952,6 +1952,10 @@ 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
2.51.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists