Re: [RFC][ only for review ] memory controller bacground reclaim [4/5] high/low watermark for memory controller

[Balbir Singh <balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

Paul Menage wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 12:56 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>         {
>> +               .name = "low_watermark_in_bytes",
>> +               .private = RES_LOW_WATERMARK,
>> +               .write = mem_cgroup_write,
>> +               .read = mem_cgroup_read,
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "high_watermark_in_bytes",
>> +               .private = RES_HIGH_WATERMARK,
>> +               .write = mem_cgroup_write,
>> +               .read = mem_cgroup_read,
>> +       },
> 
> From a style point of view, I dislike having the "in_bytes" suffix
> tacked on to all the memory controller filenames.
> 

The idea came from Andrew, when he suggested it.

Please see /proc/sys/vm. We have files like min_free_kbyes, I think it's
a good idea to tell the user what units are used.

> If people really want this to be self-documenting, how about we allow
> cgroup control files to specify metadata, which would be presented to
> the user via an auto-generated "api" file.
> 
> As an example, the addition above might then look something like:
> 
> {
>     .name = "low_watermark",
>     .units = "bytes",
>     .description = "usage below which background reclaim stops",
>     .write = mem_cgroup_write,
>     .read = mem_cgroup_read,
> }
> 
> which would correspond to a line in the "mem.api" auto-generated control file as
> 

The user is expected to cat "memory.api" in order to figure out how to
use the file?

> low_watermark: usage below which background reclaim stops (bytes)
> 
> Paul


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL