Hello, On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 08:31:56AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 08:19:28AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 12:31:35PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: ... > > > I've just read the previous threads about Barry's proposal and if doing this > > > always isn't feasible, I'm wondering if memcg would be a better interface to > > > opt-in for this kind of behavior than both prctl or mctl. I think at least > > > conceptually it fits what memcg is doing? The question is if the > > > implementation would be feasible, and if android puts apps in separate memcgs... > > > > CCing Tejun. > > > > Cgroups has been trying to resist flag settings like these. The cgroup > > tree is a nested hierarchical structure designed for dividing up > > system resources. But flag properties don't have natural inheritance > > rules. What does it mean if the parent group says one thing and the > > child says another? Which one has precedence? > > > > Hence the proposal to make it a per-process property that propagates > > through fork() and exec(). This also enables the container usecase (by > > setting the flag in the container launching process), without there > > being any confusion what the *effective* setting for any given process > > in the system is. +1. If something can work as something which gets inherited through the process hierarchy, that's usually the better choice than making it a cgroup property. There isn't much to be gained by making them cgroup properties especially given that cgroup hierarchy, in most systems at this point, is a degenerated process hierarchy. Thanks. -- tejun
