Re: [PATCH v2] mm: introduce memory.min

[Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>]

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!