Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] memcg_ext: dynamic memory.low and memory.min protection

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Hui.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 05:11:58PM +0800, Hui Zhu wrote:
> Why it matters: memory.low and memory.min protect a cgroup by a fixed
> threshold and have no idea whether it is using the memory.  A
> high-priority cgroup that holds a large working set and then goes idle
> keeps suppressing reclaim on its siblings, and that memory is wasted.
> A policy program sees the real activity - page faults, charges - and
> can grant or withdraw protection as it changes.

This doesn't justify the changes. Why can't the same be achieved by
adjusting memory.low and memory.min from userspace? The arguments made
so far are neither convincing nor proven.

Thanks.

--
tejun