On Wed, Nov 07 2012, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 02:53:49AM -0800, Anton Vorontsov wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This is the third RFC. As suggested by Minchan Kim, the API is much >> simplified now (comparing to vmevent_fd): >> >> - As well as Minchan, KOSAKI Motohiro didn't like the timers, so the >> timers are gone now; >> - Pekka Enberg didn't like the complex attributes matching code, and so it >> is no longer there; >> - Nobody liked the raw vmstat attributes, and so they were eliminated too. >> >> But, conceptually, it is the exactly the same approach as in v2: three >> discrete levels of the pressure -- low, medium and oom. The levels are >> based on the reclaimer inefficiency index as proposed by Mel Gorman, but >> userland does not see the raw index values. The description why I moved >> away from reporting the raw 'reclaimer inefficiency index' can be found in >> v2: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/22/177 >> >> While the new API is very simple, it is still extensible (i.e. versioned). > > Sorry, I didn't follow previous discussion on this, but could you > explain what's wrong with memory notifications from memcg? > As I can see you can get pretty similar functionality using memory > thresholds on the root cgroup. What's the point? Related question: are there plans to extend this system call to provide per-cgroup vm pressure notification? -- 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>