Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 13:52:39 +0100
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
CC:     <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: introduce memory.min
Message-ID: <20180502125234.GA4025@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180423123610.27988-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20180502123040.GA16060@cmpxchg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180502123040.GA16060@cmpxchg.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2018 12:52:53.9054 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 02d6dd79-7995-4b4a-4c2f-08d5b02ba050
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR15MB1079
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-05-02_04:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:30:40AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:36:10PM +0100, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > @@ -59,6 +59,12 @@ enum memcg_memory_event {
> >  	MEMCG_NR_MEMORY_EVENTS,
> >  };
> >  
> > +enum mem_cgroup_protection {
> > +	MEMCG_PROT_NONE,
> > +	MEMCG_PROT_LOW,
> > +	MEMCG_PROT_HIGH,
> 
> Ha, HIGH doesn't make much sense, but I went back and it's indeed what
> I suggested. Must have been a brainfart. This should be
> 
> MEMCG_PROT_NONE,
> MEMCG_PROT_LOW,
> MEMCG_PROT_MIN
> 
> right? To indicate which type of protection is applying.

Hm, I wasn't actually sure if it was a typo or not :)

But I thought that MEMCG_PROT_HIGH means a higher level
of protection than MEMCG_PROT_LOW, which sounds reasonable.

So, I'm fine with either option.

> 
> The rest of the patch looks good:
> 
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> 

Thanks!

Can you, also, please, take a look at this one:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/24/703.

Thank you!