From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7E3C433DF for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726D62070B for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727074AbgG2OFw (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:05:52 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33592 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726476AbgG2OFr (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:05:47 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1EBABF4; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:05:56 +0000 (UTC) From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20Koutn=C3=BD?= To: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet 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> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.27.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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