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.

Originally sent in [1], this is rebased and resent since I still think
it'd be good to have the concept somewhere documented. (E.g. for the
guys who are implementing protection for the dmem controller [2] to
arrive at similar behavior.)

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200729140537.13345-1-mkoutny@suse.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251110-dmemcg-aggressive-protect-v3-5-219ffcfc54e9@gmx.de

v2:
- diagram syntax (Jonathan)

v1 (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251110193638.623208-1-mkoutny@suse.com/)

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(-)


base-commit: 1c353dc8d962de652bc7ad2ba2e63f553331391c
-- 
2.51.1