Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 17:51:41 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface
Message-ID: <Ykdz7fiMFZeFltYy@cmpxchg.org>
References: <YkdrEG5FlL7Gq2Vi@cmpxchg.org>
 <243A0156-D26A-47C9-982A-C8B0CDD69DA2@linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <243A0156-D26A-47C9-982A-C8B0CDD69DA2@linux.dev>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 02:21:52PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 2022, at 2:13 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > 
> > ﻿On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 11:39:30AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >> The interface you're proposing is not really extensible, so we'll likely need to
> >> introduce a new interface like memory.reclaim_ext very soon. Why not create
> >> an extensible API from scratch?
> >> 
> >> I'm looking at cgroup v2 documentation which describes various interface files
> >> formats and it seems like given the number of potential optional arguments
> >> the best option is nested keyed (please, refer to the Interface Files section).
> >> 
> >> E.g. the format can be:
> >> echo "1G type=file nodemask=1-2 timeout=30s" > memory.reclaim
> > 
> > Yeah, that syntax looks perfect.
> > 
> > But why do you think it's not extensible from the current patch? We
> > can add those arguments one by one as we agree on them, and return
> > -EINVAL if somebody passes an unknown parameter.
> > 
> > It seems to me the current proposal is forward-compatible that way
> > (with the current set of keyword pararms being the empty set :-))
> 
> It wasn’t obvious to me. We spoke about positional arguments and then it wasn’t clear how to add them in a backward-compatible way. The last thing we want is a bunch of memory.reclaim* interfaces :)
> 
> So yeah, let’s just describe it properly in the documentation, no code changes are needed.

Sounds good to me!