On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:30 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 02:27:12PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:11:44AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > Hi Tejun, > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:07 AM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > Every other file in cgroup2 is hierarchical, but for recursive > > memory.events you'd need to read memory.events_tree? > > > > Do we hate our users that much? :( > > FTR, I would be okay with adding .local versions to existing files > where such a behavior could be useful. But that seems to be a separate > discussion from fixing memory.events here. Oh ok, the dispute is on the name of the interface. I am fine with whatever the decision is made as we (Google) are still not using these interfaces. However what's the way forward here? thanks, Shakeel
