Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] memcg_ext: memcg policy through cgroup-attached struct_ops

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Shakeel.

On Thu, Oct 01, 2026 at 03:56:47PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> We are in agreement on (1) and (2) completely. For (3), I am fine with removing
> the sync enforcement, but for throttling points for bulk operation sites,
> I think we should only add them when there is an actual use case for that
> or someone complains about overrun from those sites.

On (3), if removing synchronous enforcement wouldn't regress anything,
that's fine, but why was it added in the first place?

> Now, setting aside the default behavior of memory.high, I want to provide
> additional flexibility to users for (3) specifically. One specific case is
> letting users opt in to async reclaim instead of the other forms of memory.high
> enforcement. Basically, users can specify that instead of having their
> application threads throttled, they would prefer async reclaim to bring their
> usage back below memory.high.

As for flexibility, we already have a gradient of enforcement around
memory.high. Is the need here to make the shape of that gradient
configurable? Can you give specific examples where this is needed?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun