[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLFz+Zi=A0uyuNMj411ngjwpstakNY3fEWy6tW_h4whr7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:30:16 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Leonid Moiseichuk <leonid.moiseichuk@...ia.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
patches@...aro.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/3] vmpressure_fd: Linux VM pressure notifications
Hi Anton,
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Anton Vorontsov
<anton.vorontsov@...aro.org> wrote:
> This is the third RFC. As suggested by Minchan Kim, the API is much
> simplified now (comparing to vmevent_fd):
>
> - As well as Minchan, KOSAKI Motohiro didn't like the timers, so the
> timers are gone now;
> - Pekka Enberg didn't like the complex attributes matching code, and
> so it is no longer there;
> - Nobody liked the raw vmstat attributes, and so they were eliminated
> too.
I love the API and implementation simplifications but I hate the new
ABI. It's a specialized, single-purpose syscall and bunch of procfs
tunables and I don't see how it's 'extensible' to anything but VM
If people object to vmevent_fd() system call, we should consider using
something more generic like perf_event_open() instead of inventing our
own special purpose ABI.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists