[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod5ma62fRKqrAhMcuNT3GYT3FpRX+DCmeVr2nDg1u=9T8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:11:44 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
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>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events
Hi Tejun,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:07 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> 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. cgroup2 interface is far from perfect but is way better
> than cgroup1 especially for the memory controller. Why do you think
> that is?
>
I thought you are fine with the separate interface for the hierarchical events.
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190128161201.GS50184@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com
Is that not the case?
Shakeel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists