lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface
From
Date
> 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.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-17 16:19    [W:0.126 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site