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;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:58:33 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Cc:     thomas.lendacky@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, jon.grimm@amd.com,
        eric.vantassell@amd.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com,
        lizefan@huawei.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com, corbet@lwn.net, joro@8bytes.org,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com,
        gingell@google.com, rientjes@google.com, dionnaglaze@google.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 0/2] cgroup: KVM: New Encryption IDs cgroup controller
Message-ID: <X9E6eZaIFDhzrqWO@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20201209205413.3391139-1-vipinsh@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201209205413.3391139-1-vipinsh@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

Rough take after skimming:

* I don't have an overall objection. In terms of behavior, the only thing
  which stood out was input rejection depending on the current usage. The
  preferred way of handling that is rejecting future allocations rather than
  failing configuration as that makes it impossible e.g. to lower limit and
  drain existing usages from outside the container.

* However, the boilerplate to usefulness ratio doesn't look too good and I
  wonder whether what we should do is adding a generic "misc" controller
  which can host this sort of static hierarchical counting. I'll think more
  on it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun