Received: by 2002:ac0:a582:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m2-v6csp1572001imm; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:01:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63dx3DNOifQQg34rCjL3QVhxU1TleFKdujK/+HPjnQNi4OB/ddfLSSmS9FJAlNcMKHwDWls X-Received: by 2002:a63:2ad4:: with SMTP id q203-v6mr26825402pgq.356.1539846109559; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:01:49 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1539846109; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=G9odvkfDmolSbPCGpQFc5c0nqCROCZwmvgxQEH7AABY2ZgbOkkFer4X2GuVrHE/C9j njj/jviVUMWyswJQ6hrXuovt7H5yt2os0xSwZNjsYb1EVqgp0dWGPz9tBHbwYvrNDKTy 2yR9deEr6GgMk5uE5nxCS5lgXPpKTny5WPyTQjT4tdsvVBfQ/ZqlhlEDbwh3ThkmwTz0 Jqr3y2tf7uE/OCGo6Pa1ncpY4WvP+HzhiMFpoelHPF7nEZw24CDJNqu14FRLGtIFbq4/ e4cFzF7lR7pEhMwia1+NH2XYai1tb8p/valUfsviZyp1JscIvpCbYKjIdA4E/qDF2G8p cAKQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=mPKOP0kg0rb7FzRdiaPFjTiUlihklhhTkrzm7N3N3sw=; b=QXj6iBl3x101EjxTlAt+wVAdzQgfjtGOEorgec8lxjG61p8BtOW0wrj4+sJUIQ0JbM 2NHE6NtOOxU1m7FpEqVJ1je0xcVC8lsyYYYboagiLGUI8MQNHu8qbzLC3oOEHw5xUYh5 LQyn7X4fZ5Dtp17dLzu0qVkqqlDvL1V6Oip4QR8cH5uCiN6qr2Um64IYdI9faDskuy3b sDj4XgEYAb39ORQC3YCGAcgVuslHkRoV2UylGiLQ3Lx4iSpl1Zb3j8Cs7b9UqDT61aAa ia+I+0VKygQqTbzZ76M8VtZF9JrVsBQENOxywEhUzilLXNzlBoHs7rhVVdJH/HgMTjj9 NZkQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t7-v6si19402595plo.191.2018.10.18.00.01.33; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727638AbeJRPAH (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:00:07 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33018 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727337AbeJRPAG (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:00:06 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA477B006; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:00:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 09:00:31 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Alexey Dobriyan , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, proc: report PR_SET_THP_DISABLE in proc Message-ID: <20181018070031.GW18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20181004094637.GG22173@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181009083326.GG8528@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181015150325.GN18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181016104855.GQ18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20181017070531.GC18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 17-10-18 12:59:18, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Do you know of any other userspace except your usecase? Is there > > anything fundamental that would prevent a proper API adoption for you? > > > > Yes, it would require us to go back in time and build patched binaries. I read that as there is a fundamental problem to update existing binaries. If that is the case then there surely is no way around it and another sad page in the screwed up APIs book we provide. But I was under impression that the SW stack which actually does the monitoring is under your controll. Moreover I was under impression that you do not use the current vanilla kernel so there is no need for an immediate change on your end. It is trivial to come up with a backward compatible way to check for the new flag (if it is not present then fallback to vma flags). I am sorry for pushing here but if this is just a matter of a _single_ user which _can_ be fixed with a reasonable effort then I would love to see the future api unscrewed. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs