[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130805160107.GM10146@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:01:07 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: lizefan@...wei.com, hannes@...xchg.org, bsingharora@...il.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.12] cgroup: make cgroup_event specific to
memcg
On Sun 04-08-13 12:07:21, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
Hi Tejun,
> Like many other things in cgroup, cgroup_event is way too flexible and
> complex - it strives to provide completely flexible event monitoring
> facility in cgroup proper which allows any number of users to monitor
> custom events. This is overboard, to say the least,
Could you be more specific about what is so "overboard" about this
interface? I am not familiar with internals much, so I cannot judge the
complexity part, but I thought that eventfd was intended for this kind
of kernel->userspace notifications.
> and I strongly think that cgroup should not any new usages of this
> facility and preferably deprecate the existing usages if at all
> possible.
So you think that vmpressure, oom notification or thresholds are
an abuse of this interface? What would you consider a reasonable
replacement for those notifications? Or do you think that controller
shouldn't be signaling any conditions to the userspace at all?
[...]
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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