[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121107114321.GA32265@shutemov.name>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:43:22 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
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
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 01:28:12PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> >> While the new API is very simple, it is still extensible (i.e. versioned).
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't follow previous discussion on this, but could you
> > explain what's wrong with memory notifications from memcg?
> > As I can see you can get pretty similar functionality using memory
> > thresholds on the root cgroup. What's the point?
>
> Why should you be required to use cgroups to get VM pressure events to
> userspace?
Valid point. But in fact you have it on most systems anyway.
I personally don't like to have a syscall per small feature.
Isn't it better to have a file-based interface which can be used with
normal file syscalls: open()/read()/poll()?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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