Re: [PATCH] memcg: add hierarchical effective limits for v2

[Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>]

Sorry for the late response.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 06:57:46PM +0100, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Hello.
> 

[...]

> > The most simple explanation is visibility. Workloads that used to run
> > solo are being moved to a multi-tenant but non-overcommited environment
> > and they need to know their capacity which they used to get from system
> > metrics.
> 
> > Now they have to get from cgroup limit files but usage of
> > cgroup namespace limits those workloads to extract the needed
> > information.
> 
> I remember Shakeel said the limit may be set higher in the hierarchy for
> container + siblings but then it's potentially overcommitted, no?
> 
> I.e. namespace visibility alone is not the problem. The cgns root's
> memory.max is the shared medium between host and guest through which the
> memory allowance can be passed -- that actually sounds to me like
> Johannes' option b).
> 
> (Which leads me to an idea of memory.max.effective that'd only present
> the value iff there's no sibling between tightest ancestor..self. If one
> looks at nr_tasks, it's partial but correct memory available. Not that
> useful due to the partiality.)
> 
> Since I was originally fan of the idea, I'm not a strong opponent of
> plain memory.max.effective, especially when Johannes considers the
> option of kernel stepping back here and it may help some users. But I'd
> like to see the original incarnations [2] somehow linked (and maybe
> start only with memory.max as
> that has some usecases).

Yes, I can link [2] with more info added to the commit message.

Johannes, do you want effective interface for low and min as well or for
now just keep the current targeted interfaces?

> 
> Thanks,
> Michal
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZcY7NmjkJMhGz8fP@host1.jankratochvil.net/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240606152232.20253-1-mkoutny@suse.com/