From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.12] cgroup: make cgroup_event specific to memcg Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:00:32 -0400 Message-ID: <20130809010032.GA14792@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20130805162958.GF19631@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130805191641.GA24003@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130805194431.GD23751@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130806155804.GC31138@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130806161509.GB10779@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130807121836.GF8184@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130807124321.GA27006@htj.dyndns.org> <20130807132613.GH8184@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130807133645.GE27006@htj.dyndns.org> <5203081C.8050403@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=lvBessSqaHZXx/Jzk8Cr+dpchtaJO4Hrh2hXRjb6pqQ=; b=ZoMbVvN+onohOLF4btVVBgI6LiKq+7lQfZEUYd5HDEidvisJpV8kN5fDW4p3/S5ZSm /AfI9HprFfPNYl+YPEydKduMcNzaycYeGEgyqIXEVoMuDEfr7FdMkTZv27rE+iQwStjI hylfoeXrMxFDGXIzg92A93mGEqNiT6k9YjWiR3fZaxgouOIzAXdFVv5R6Gud24Oc19MG Z4rrzDoOKLyTPdmUjLAt8clRvmO0EgOT8Wq8noJU8QIPm1nPdLEJvdZKsy/yBTbLRqiY oWXN9pMAKjWVuOk0RZvYrE0YBhfV2U94Zj8bpST5iy2e42YnBuhOjma9u6GBeM03sVXf 7hvA== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5203081C.8050403@huawei.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Li Zefan Cc: Michal Hocko , hannes@cmpxchg.org, bsingharora@gmail.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Li. On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:53:16AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > I would like to see this happen. I have a feeling that we're deprecating > features a bit aggressively without providing alternatives. I'd rework it prolly next week but this has to go one way or another. There's no way we're implementing userland interface this complex in cgroup proper. It is a gross layering violation. We don't implement userland visible interface this complex in low level subsystems. It's wrong both in principle and leads to all sorts of problems in practice like ending up worrying about userland abuses in memcg event source implementation, which is utterly bonkers if you ask me. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org