[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190515151557.GA23969@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 17:15:57 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Timofey Titovets <nefelim4ag@...il.com>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
Grzegorz Halat <ghalat@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] mm/ksm: add option to automerge VMAs
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 04:51:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Cc Suren and Minchan - the email thread starts here 20190514131654.25463-1-oleksandr@...hat.com]
>
> On Wed 15-05-19 08:53:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > I will try to comment on the interface itself later. But I have to say
> > that I am not impressed. Abusing sysfs for per process features is quite
> > gross to be honest.
>
> I have already commented on this in other email. I consider sysfs an
> unsuitable interface for per-process API.
Wait, what? A new sysfs file/directory per process? That's crazy, no
one must have benchmarked it :)
And I agree, sysfs is not for that, please don't abuse it. Proc is for
process apis.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists