Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Memory reclaim documentation fixes
Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:05:34 +0200
Message-Id: <20200729140537.13345-1-mkoutny@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,
I think the reclaim target is a concept that is not just an
implementation detail and hence it should be documented how it applies
to protection configuration (the first patch). Second patch is a "best
practice" bit of information, it may be squashed with the first one. The
last patch just makes docs indefinite until the idea is implemented.


Michal Koutný (3):
  docs: cgroup: Explain reclaim protection target
  docs: cgroup: Note about sibling relative reclaim protection
  docs: cgroup: No special handling of unpopulated memcgs

 Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

-- 
2.27.0