[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130628185547.GA14520@teo>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:55:47 -0700
From: Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
To: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.cz, kmpark@...radead.org,
hyunhee.kim@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vmpressure: implement strict mode
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:45:07PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:09:17 -0700
> Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org> wrote:
>
> > So, I would now argue that the current scheme is perfectly OK and can do
> > everything you can do with the "strict" one,
>
> I forgot commenting this bit. This is not true, because I don't want a
> low fd to be notified on critical level. The current interface just
> can't do that.
Why can't you use poll() and demultiplex the events? Check if there is an
event in the crit fd, and if there is, then just ignore all the rest.
> However, it *is* possible to make non-strict work on strict if we make
> strict default _and_ make reads on memory.pressure_level return
> available events. Just do this on app initialization:
>
> for each event in memory.pressure_level; do
> /* register eventfd to be notified on "event" */
> done
This scheme registers "all" events. Here is more complicated case:
Old kernels, pressure_level reads:
low, med, crit
The app just wants to listen for med level.
New kernels, pressure_level reads:
low, FOO, med, BAR, crit
How would application decide which of FOO and BAR are ex-med levels?
Anton
--
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