lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] vmpressure: implement strict mode
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:45:47 -0700
Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:25:58PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > > > That's how it's expected to work, because on strict mode you're notified
> > > > > for the level you registered for. So apps registering for critical, will
> > > > > still be notified on critical just like before.
> > > >
> > > > Suppose you introduce a new level, and the system hits this level. Before,
> > > > the app would receive at least some notification for the given memory load
> > > > (i.e. one of the old levels), with the new level introduced in the kernel,
> > > > the app will receive no events at all.
> >
> > That's not true. If an app registered for critical it will still get
> > critical notification when the system is at the critical level. Just as it
> > always did. No new events will change this.
> >
> > With today's semantics though, new events will change when current events
> > are triggered. So each new extension will cause applications to have
> > different behaviors, in different kernel versions. This looks quite
> > undesirable to me.
>
> I'll try to explain it again.
>
> Old behaviour:
>
> low -> event
> x <- but the system is at this unnamed level, between low and med
> med
> crit
>
>
> We add a level:
>
> low
> low-med <- system at this state, we send an event, but the old app does
> not know about it, so it won't receive *any* notifications. (In
> older kernels it would receive low level notification
> med
> crit
>
> You really don't see a problem here?

I do get what you're saying. We disagree it's a problem. In my mind the
best API is to get what you registered for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, there might be ways around it (being it a problem or not). I was
also considering this:

> 3. Never change the levels (how can we know?)

If we fail at determining levels (I honestly think current levels are
all we need), we can add a new interface later.

Also, what I said in the last email should work, which is to make
memory.pressure_level return supported levels, so an application can
register for all available levels. This way it will never miss a level.

I also think this matches having the mechanism in the kernel and
policy in user-space.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-28 21:41    [W:0.090 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site