Re: [PATCH 3/3] vmevent: Implement special low-memory attribute
From: Pekka Enberg
Date: Tue May 08 2012 - 04:04:01 EST
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:50 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
>>> 1) sample_period is brain damaged idea. If people ONLY need to
>>> sampling stastics, they
>>> only need to read /proc/vmstat periodically. just remove it and
>>> implement push notification.
>>> _IF_ someone need unfrequent level trigger, just use
>>> "usleep(timeout); read(vmevent_fd)"
>>> on userland code.
>> That comes from a real-world requirement. See Leonid's email on the topic:
> I know, many embedded guys prefer such timer interval. I also have an
> similar logic when I was TV box developer. but I must disagree. Someone hope
> timer housekeeping complexity into kernel. but I haven't seen any
>>> 6) Also vmevent_event must hide from userland.
>> Why? That's part of the ABI.
> Ahhh, if so, I missed something. as far as I look, vmevent_fd() only depend
> on vmevent_config. which syscall depend on vmevent_evennt?
read(2). See tools/testing/vmevent/vmevent-test.c for an example how
the ABI is used.
>>> 7) vmevent_config::size must be removed. In 20th century, M$ API
>>> prefer to use this technique. But
>>> They dropped the way because a lot of application don't initialize
>>> size member and they can't use it for keeping upper compitibility.
>> It's there to support forward/backward ABI compatibility like perf
>> does. I'm going to keep it for now but I'm open to dropping it when
>> the ABI is more mature.
> perf api is not intended to use from generic applications. then, I don't
> think it will make abi issue. tool/perf is sane, isn't it? but vmevent_fd()
> is generic api and we can't trust all userland guy have sane, unfortunately.
The perf ABI is being used by other projects as well. We don't
_depend_ on ->size being sane as much as use it to detect new features
in the future.
But anyway, we can consider dropping once the ABI is more stable.
> Hm. If you want vmevent makes depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED, I have no reason to
> complain this feature. At that world, almost all applications _know_ their
> system configuration. then I don't think api misuse issue is big matter.
No, I don't want to do that. I was just commeting on why existing
solutions are the way they are.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/