On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 08:33:12AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> wrote: > The semantics of dmemcg should not substantially differ from the memory cgroup > controller. I believe the memory cgroup controller does allow setting a lower > max, and will evict until below the new max. > > See mm/memcontrol.c:memory_max_write > > We should probably do the same in dmemcg instead, although we currently have > no > mechanism to evict, setting a new lower max at least prevents future > allocations > from failing.
+1 Yes, if the dmem resource is preemptible, the limit decrement should take an action to fullfill the limit (like with memory.max). Even as non-preemptible resource, the behavior could be more consistent with misc controller that allows "storing" any value (with the effect of preventing further growth). Thanks, Michal
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
