On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 04:21:28PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Minchan Kim <minc...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Should we really enable memcg for just pressure notificaion in embedded > > side? > > I didn't check the size(cgroup + memcg) and performance penalty but I don't > > want > > to add unnecessary overhead if it is possible. > > Do you have a plan to support it via global knob(ie, /proc/mempressure), > > NOT memcg? > > That should be handled by mempressure at the root cgroup. If that adds > significant amount of overhead code or memory-wise, we just need to > fix root cgroup handling in memcg. No reason to further complicate the > interface which already is pretty complex.
For what it worth, I agree here. Even if we decide to make another interface to vmpressure (which, say, would not require memcg), then it is better to keep the API the same: eventfd + control file. That way, API/ABI-wise there will be no differnce between memcg and non-memcg kernels, which is cool. Thanks, Anton -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
