Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] misc_cgroup: use a counter to count the number of
 failures
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=c3=bd?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vipinsh@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
References: <a09f381462b1ce9c506a22713b998e21b459f7e9.1628899295.git.brookxu@tencent.com>
 <20210824164423.GA11859@blackbody.suse.cz> <YSVDwc/1sEmXdOK9@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   brookxu <brookxu.cn@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ed67493-e595-e002-69f9-1f53662ba189@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Aug 2021 09:34:45 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YSVDwc/1sEmXdOK9@slm.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


Tejun Heo wrote on 2021/8/25 3:08:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 06:44:23PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
>> However, the non-hierarchical failcnt interface looks like v1ism to me
>> (I think new features should come with v2 first in mind).
>> What about exposing this in misc.events file with max.$res_name entries? 
> 
> Ah yeah, good point. misc.events sounds like a good spot to put these.
> 
>> Or if the hierarchical reporting is unnecessary now, there can be just
>> misc.events.local for starters.
> 
> I'd prefer to stick with hierarchical counting as the first step at least.
> 
>> (That reminds me the forgotten pids.events[.local] rework [1], oops.)
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191128172612.10259-1-mkoutny@suse.com/#t

The core logic of pids cgroup and misc cgroup is similar. Is it possible for
us to merge pids cgroup into misc cgroup?

> I think both counters are useful - the number of failures due to this type
> of limit in this subhierarchy, and the number of failures caused by this
> particular limit in this subhierarchy. It's a pretty subtle difference to
> encapsulate in a counter name tho.
> 
> Thanks.
>