From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:01:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20190124170117.GS4087@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190123223144.GA10798@chrisdown.name> <20190124082252.GD4087@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190124160009.GA12436@cmpxchg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190124160009.GA12436@cmpxchg.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Chris Down , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , Roman Gushchin , Dennis Zhou , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@fb.com On Thu 24-01-19 11:00:10, Johannes Weiner wrote: [...] > We cannot fully eliminate a risk for regression, but it strikes me as > highly unlikely, given the extremely young age of cgroup2-based system > management and surrounding tooling. I am not really sure what you consider young but this interface is 4.0+ IIRC and the cgroup v2 is considered stable since 4.5 unless I missrememeber and that is not a short time period in my book. Changing interfaces now represents a non-trivial risk and so far I haven't heard any actual usecase where the current semantic is actually wrong. Inconsistency on its own is not a sufficient justification IMO. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs