Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:03:36 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] Memory usage limit notification addition to memcg |
| |
* Dan Malek <dan@embeddedalley.com> [2009-07-16 11:16:29]:
> > On Jul 16, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > Dan, if you are suggesting that we incrementally add features, I > > completely agree with you, that way the code is reviewable and > > maintainable. As we add features we need to > > Right, this is all goodness. My specific comments are this patch > adds a new useful feature and it's been through a couple of iterations > to make it more acceptable. Let's post it, as it makes people aware > of such a feature since it's currently in use and useful, and then > continue the discussion about how to make it (and all of the cgroup > features) better. Otherwise, this is going to degenerate into a "do > everything but nothing gets done" ongoing discussion and I'll > quickly lose interest and move on the something else :-) > > There are currently two discussions in progress. One is about > notification limits, which this feature patch adds. We need to > close this discussion with a more feature rich implementation > that addresses both upper and lower notification, the semantics > of this feature in a cgroup hierarchy, and in particular the > behavior outside of the memory controller group. > > The second discussion is about event delivery in cgroups. > Linux already has many mechanisms, and some product > implementations patch even more of their own into the kernel. > Outside of these implementation details, we have to determine > what is useful for a cgroup. Are events just arbitrary (anything > can send any kind of event)? How do we pass information? > Is there some standard header? How do we control this so > the event target is identified and we prevent event floods? > And many more..... >
I think you keep missing my pointers to cgroupstats - a genetlink based mechanism for event delivery and request/response applications.
> > 1. Look at reuse > > 2. Make sure the design is sane and will not prohibit further > > development. > > 3. Contain the scope of work so I can do it without affecting > the work that pays my salary :-) >
Not at the cost of (1) and (2) and a patient discussion around what is being proposed.
-- Balbir
| |