From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] mm/ksm: add option to automerge VMAs Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 17:15:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20190515151557.GA23969@kroah.com> References: <20190514131654.25463-1-oleksandr@redhat.com> <20190514144105.GF4683@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190514145122.GG4683@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190515062523.5ndf7obzfgugilfs@butterfly.localdomain> <20190515065311.GB16651@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190515145151.GG16651@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190515145151.GG16651@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michal Hocko Cc: Oleksandr Natalenko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kirill Tkhai , Vlastimil Babka , Matthew Wilcox , Pavel Tatashin , Timofey Titovets , Aaron Tomlin , Grzegorz Halat , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , Suren Baghdasaryan , Minchan Kim List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 04:51:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc Suren and Minchan - the email thread starts here 20190514131654.25463-1-oleksandr@redhat.com] > > On Wed 15-05-19 08:53:11, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > I will try to comment on the interface itself later. But I have to say > > that I am not impressed. Abusing sysfs for per process features is quite > > gross to be honest. > > I have already commented on this in other email. I consider sysfs an > unsuitable interface for per-process API. Wait, what? A new sysfs file/directory per process? That's crazy, no one must have benchmarked it :) And I agree, sysfs is not for that, please don't abuse it. Proc is for process apis. thanks, greg k-h