[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yl8AchMeoHkG1e9l@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:33:22 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc 0/5] mm: introduce shrinker sysfs interface
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 10:52:44AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:27:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > The folder
> > > contains "count" and "scan" files, which allow to trigger count_objects()
> > > and scan_objects() callbacks. For memcg-aware and numa-aware shrinkers
> > > count_memcg, scan_memcg, count_node, scan_node, count_memcg_node
> > > and scan_memcg_node are additionally provided. They allow to get per-memcg
> > > and/or per-node object count and shrink only a specific memcg/node.
> > >
> > > To make debugging more pleasant, the patchset also names all shrinkers,
> > > so that sysfs entries can have more meaningful names.
> >
> > I also was wondering "why not debugfs".
>
> Fair enough, moving to debugfs in v1.
Thank you, that keeps me from complaining about how badly you were
abusing sysfs in this patchset :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists