On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:35 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 07:02:03PM +0000, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > > If all workloads were guaranteed to be controlled under memcg, the issue > > could be worked around by setting tcp_mem[0~2] to UINT_MAX. > > > > In reality, this assumption does not always hold, and processes not > > controlled by memcg lose the seatbelt and can consume memory up to > > the global limit, becoming noisy neighbour. > > It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that this container > configuration is not, and cannot be, supported. Processes not > controlled by memcg have many avenues to become noisy neighbors in a > multi-tenant system. > > So my NAK still applies. Please carry this forward in all future patch > submissions even if your implementation changes. I see. I'm waiting for Shakeel's response as he agreed on decoupling memcg and tcp_mem and suggested the bpf approach.
