From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx158.postini.com [74.125.245.158]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E6D996B0037 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 03:50:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:50:51 +0900 From: Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmpressure: implement strict mode Message-ID: <20130626075051.GG29127@bbox> References: <20130625175129.7c0d79e1@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130625175129.7c0d79e1@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhocko@suse.cz, anton@enomsg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 05:51:29PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > Currently, applications are notified for the level they registered for > _plus_ higher levels. > > This is a problem if the application wants to implement different > actions for different levels. For example, an application might want > to release 10% of its cache on level low, 50% on medium and 100% on > critical. To do this, the application has to register a different fd > for each event. However, fd low is always going to be notified and > and all fds are going to be notified on level critical. > > Strict mode solves this problem by strictly notifiying the event > an fd has registered for. It's optional. By default we still notify > on higher levels. > > Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino Acked-by: Minchan Kim Shouldn't we make this default? What do you think about it? -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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