linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:41:17 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events

On Wed 30-01-19 09:06:58, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:50:58PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Yeah, cgroup.events and .stat files as some of the local stats would
> > > be useful too, so if we don't flip memory.events we'll end up with sth
> > > like cgroup.events.local, memory.events.tree and memory.stats.local,
> > > which is gonna be hilarious.
> > 
> > Why cannot we simply have memory.events_tree and be done with it? Sure
> > the file names are not goin to be consistent which is a minus but that
> > ship has already sailed some time ago.
> 
> Because the overall cost of shitty interface will be way higher in the
> longer term.

But we are discussing the file name effectively. I do not see a long
term maintenance burden. Confusing? Probably yes but that is were the
documentation would be helpful.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs