[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130702143822.4af2ebe3@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:38:22 -0400
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
To: Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
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 Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:24:09 -0700
Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org> wrote:
> > Honestly, what Andrew suggested is the best design for me: apps
> > are notified on all events but the event name is sent to the application.
>
> I am fine with this approach (or any other, I'm really indifferent to the
> API itself -- read/netlink/notification per file/whatever for the
> payload),
That's a very good thing because we've managed to agree on something :)
I'm also indifferent to the API, as long as we have 100% of the policy
in user-space. To me this means we do absolutely no filtering in the
kernel, which in turn means user-space gets all the events. Of course,
we need the event name as a payload.
Do we agree this solves all use-cases we have discussed so far?
> except that you still have the similar problem:
>
> read() old read() new
> --------------------------
> "low" "low"
> "low" "foo" -- the app does not know what does this mean
> "med" "bar" -- ditto
It can just ignore it, have a special handling, log it, fail or whatever.
That's the good of having the policy in user-space.
--
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