On Tue 14-04-20 18:12:47, Leonid Moiseichuk wrote: > I do not agree with all comments, see below. > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 12:42:44PM -0400, Leonid Moiseichuk wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:37 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon 13-04-20 17:57:48, svc_lmoiseichuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > Anyway, I have to confess I am not a big fan of this. vmpressure turned > > > > out to be a very weak interface to measure the memory pressure. Not > > only > > > > it is not numa aware which makes it unusable on many systems it also > > > > gives data way too late from the practice. > > > > Yes, it's late in the game for vmpressure, and also a bit too late for > > extensive changes in cgroup1. > > > 200 lines just to move functionality from one place to another without > logic change? > There does not seem to be extensive changes. Any user visible API is an big change. We have to maintain any api for ever. So there has to be a really strong reason/use case for inclusion. I haven't heard any strong justification so far. It all seems to me that you are trying to workaround real vmpressure issues by fine tunning parameters and that is almost always a bad reason for a adding a new tunning. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
