On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:45:07PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:09:17 -0700 > Anton Vorontsov <anton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > So, I would now argue that the current scheme is perfectly OK and can do > > everything you can do with the "strict" one, > > I forgot commenting this bit. This is not true, because I don't want a > low fd to be notified on critical level. The current interface just > can't do that. Why can't you use poll() and demultiplex the events? Check if there is an event in the crit fd, and if there is, then just ignore all the rest. > However, it *is* possible to make non-strict work on strict if we make > strict default _and_ make reads on memory.pressure_level return > available events. Just do this on app initialization: > > for each event in memory.pressure_level; do > /* register eventfd to be notified on "event" */ > done This scheme registers "all" events. Here is more complicated case: Old kernels, pressure_level reads: low, med, crit The app just wants to listen for med level. New kernels, pressure_level reads: low, FOO, med, BAR, crit How would application decide which of FOO and BAR are ex-med levels? 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>