Hi David, Thanks for your comments! On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:21:14PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > > Why should you be required to use cgroups to get VM pressure events to > > > userspace? > > > > Valid point. But in fact you have it on most systems anyway. > > > > I personally don't like to have a syscall per small feature. > > Isn't it better to have a file-based interface which can be used with > > normal file syscalls: open()/read()/poll()? > > > > I agree that eventfd is the way to go, but I'll also add that this feature > seems to be implemented at a far too coarse of level. Memory, and hence > memory pressure, is constrained by several factors other than just the > amount of physical RAM which vmpressure_fd is addressing. What about > memory pressure caused by cpusets or mempolicies? (Memcg has its own > reclaim logic Yes, sure, and my plan for per-cgroups vmpressure was to just add the same hooks into cgroups reclaim logic (as far as I understand, we can use the same scanned/reclaimed ratio + reclaimer priority to determine the pressure). > and its own memory thresholds implemented on top of eventfd > that people already use.) These both cause high levels of reclaim within > the page allocator whereas there may be an abundance of free memory > available on the system. Yes, surely global-level vmpressure should be separate for the per-cgroup memory pressure. But we still want the "global vmpressure" thing, so that we could use it without cgroups too. How to do it -- syscall or sysfs+eventfd doesn't matter much (in the sense that I can do eventfd thing if you folks like it :). > I don't think we want several implementations of memory pressure > notifications, Even with a dedicated syscall, why would we need a several implementation of memory pressure? Suppose an app in the root cgroup gets an FD via vmpressure_fd() syscall and then polls it... Do you see any reason why we can't make the underlaying FD switch from global to per-cgroup vmpressure notifications completely transparently for the app? Actually, it must be done transparently. Oh, or do you mean that we want to monitor cgroups vmpressure outside of the cgroup? I.e. parent cgroup might want to watch child's pressure? Well, for this, the API will have to have a hard dependency for cgroup's sysfs hierarchy -- so how would we use it without cgroups then? :) I see no other option but to have two "APIs" then. (Well, in eventfd case it will be indeed simpler -- we would only have different sysfs paths for cgroups and non-cgroups case... do you see this acceptable?) Thanks, Anton. -- 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>