From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA1BC432BE for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E5060FD9 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242136AbhHZLap (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2021 07:30:45 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]:37246 "EHLO smtp-out2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233829AbhHZLan (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2021 07:30:43 -0400 Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA87020192; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:29:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1629977395; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IN2Dtsa48cpPIFgznxW6CFNis9T0sGloZqOdQstyxAo=; b=M+31mAg0zGIMPzDxcdU19Pxt7nwlp+rrH9dYqxplbi8iG3GiPB7PHCSVgk3FfheCJFRxXg ulMuwr76znAH/IGQnRHgKr2k5NYpeW4BiHjWEndgG7ZBZl/bbwAi80S00H/GjH7PlxevmC /esdDomCduAV0AEL4GdMz040vAT3Fag= Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB94613318; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:29:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id y9nSKDN7J2HENwAAGKfGzw (envelope-from ); Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:29:55 +0000 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 13:29:54 +0200 From: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= To: brookxu Cc: Tejun Heo , lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vipinsh@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] misc_cgroup: use a counter to count the number of failures Message-ID: <20210826112954.GD4520@blackbody.suse.cz> References: <20210824164423.GA11859@blackbody.suse.cz> <4ed67493-e595-e002-69f9-1f53662ba189@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ed67493-e595-e002-69f9-1f53662ba189@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 09:34:45AM +0800, brookxu wrote: > The core logic of pids cgroup and misc cgroup is similar. Yes, the latter is conceptually a generalization of the former and it can be tempting to use the general form. Beware that pids controller would need to retain its existing API (and the behavior of being an independent controller) and that would be IMO exceptions counterweighting the generalization. > Is it possible for us to merge pids cgroup into misc cgroup? Technically it might be possible but I can't see the benefit (but maybe you envisioned something else where my reasoning won't apply). Michal