Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760418Ab2FEIlF (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 04:41:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:58343 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757643Ab2FEIlC (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 04:41:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 01:39:22 -0700 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Pekka Enberg Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Minchan Kim , Leonid Moiseichuk , John Stultz , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Some vmevent fixes... Message-ID: <20120605083921.GA21745@lizard> References: <20120601122118.GA6128@lizard> <4FCC7592.9030403@kernel.org> <20120604113811.GA4291@lizard> <4FCD14F1.1030105@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2493 Lines: 57 On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:47:18AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:05 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro > wrote: > >> Note that 1) and 2) are not problems per se, it's just implementation > >> details, easy stuff. Vmevent is basically an ABI/API, and I didn't > >> hear anybody who would object to vmevent ABI idea itself. More than > >> this, nobody stop us from implementing in-kernel vmevent API, and > >> make Android Lowmemory killer use it, if we want to. > > > > I never agree "it's mere ABI" discussion. Until the implementation is ugly, > > I never agree the ABI even if syscall interface is very clean. > > I don't know what discussion you are talking about. > > I also don't agree that something should be merged just because the > ABI is clean. The implementation must also make sense. I don't see how > we disagree here at all. BTW, I wasn't implying that vmevent should be merged just because it is a clean ABI, and I wasn't implying that it is clean, and I didn't propose to merge it at all. :-) I just don't see any point in trying to scrap vmevent in favour of Android low memory killer. This makes no sense at all, since today vmevent is more useful than Android's solution. For vmevent we have contributors from Nokia, Samsung, and of course Linaro, plus we have an userland killer daemon* for Android (which can work with both cgroups and vmevent backends). So vmevent is more generic already. To me it would make more sense if mm guys would tell us "scrap this all, just use cgroups and its notifications; fix cgroups' slab accounting and be happy". Well, I'd understand that. Anyway, we all know that vmevent is 'work in progress', so nobody tries to push it, nobody asks to merge it. So far we're just discussing any possible solutions, and vmevent is a good playground. So, question to Minchan. Do you have anything particular in mind regarding how the vmstat hooks should look like? And how all this would connect with cgroups, since KOSAKI wants to see it cgroups- aware... p.s. http://git.infradead.org/users/cbou/ulmkd.git I haven't updated it for new vmevent changes, but still, its idea should be clear enough. -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/