Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp6676462imu; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:25:27 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5eDOvugkv8gp0Ev8HeezVH3TP19GJWDpEk10P4JCcg/i5tpbCV8sVcYz/9I1U41BSXA8Eiu X-Received: by 2002:a62:c20b:: with SMTP id l11-v6mr1985226pfg.251.1542201927315; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:25:27 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1542201927; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=WhP145ofuBpmrATss2MXER0IZNaYi44MtxTRRFCFL5LNDkdZ1p9Dsk+pUORM4eH8Xq BwSZALFOpsJpMVKYDrjlp/2ap8YylHCfUxnSqr7dc+ltEK3oAmsU/RHKF3rnk5t030Fq HtvA8vmkjanut0Lj2oAViIKlfEpCCdo+UBA1OK0v44LQOBB/CVsD6wwXlU+qrwkyTkrx X48fgxsKv5U3flsC7WHk829biRTS3UcnX1TusRl7cf8Kz/mqCNg1is7/u1WDND96MdPC w+TOp7191Uh5xJt4C/D1sw3laqQmCnE0m8vklYI2epH3W5sCAQ89N0hRvcsroz15lpAh Vy9A== 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=kw4oQNauiQe/F92J5C9CCTC6mp2PkI57wdBdHkIppxw=; b=vyxQl96WCZRBk0/LnbRkzMNOGAU9u0WkdFhUzp+5xEEyJdgUBdDEMreV5aMK92YsXh jeY2ZYsLi/FjYnauZNz4cmX+WzdRT8S0HWFB3oXTwOP+0FrC6/R86GZVmfdqoxnigpze 4mS85QOeEoNruRQgWKBjYcpYdZZEfxOaHK7NpL65skJWiOzl4ctCxGZdAf1SVMva3Jav fy//RJv8U67uOxcFLeHLUKgimh1groPN2qNxD45/rXsV9R4R0Zaq4b4vf5HBTrd3umRV GDm8VYOVwTl3KPLSkk8zuS/tTv+WaWkBzRAnEMBJcAXC2iwe/nkOXW6O0iGoT15lJZXG hxHQ== 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 n34-v6si24109824pld.31.2018.11.14.05.25.10; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 05:25:27 -0800 (PST) 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 S1732676AbeKNX0Y (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 14 Nov 2018 18:26:24 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49154 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727830AbeKNX0Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2018 18:26:24 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E61AB038; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:23:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 14:23:06 +0100 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: <20181114132306.GX23419@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> <20181018070031.GW18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181018070031.GW18839@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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 Thu 18-10-18 09:00:31, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. ping -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs