Hi Pekka, On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:44:52AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Your description doesn't include why we need new vmevent_fd(2). > > Of course, it's very flexible and potential to add new VM knob easily but > > the thing we is about to use now is only VMEVENT_ATTR_PRESSURE. > > Is there any other use cases for swap or free? or potential user? > > Adding vmevent_fd without them is rather overkill. > > What ABI would you use instead? I thought /dev/some_knob like mem_notify and epoll is enough but please keep in mind that I'm not against vmevent_fd strongly. My point is that description should include explain about why other candidate is not good or why vmevent_fd is better. (But at least, I don't like vmevent timer polling still and I hope we use it as last resort once we can find another) > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't object but we need rationale for adding new system call which should > > be maintained forever once we add it. > > Agreed. > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>