Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: Add reclaim type to memory.reclaim

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>]

On Tue 27-02-24 20:12:27, Yafang Shao wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:09 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > If that's the case, why was slabs info initially exposed through
> > > /proc/slabinfo?

because that helps to better understand the memory consumption by slab
consumers.

> > > Isn't that level of detail considered a kernel
> > > implementation detail? Currently, users can identify which slab is
> > > consuming the most memory but lack the ability to take action based on
> > > that information. This suggests a flaw in the kernel implementation.

I disgree!

> > BTW, we even expose more detailed kernel implementation details
> > through /sys/kernel/slab.
> > That is really confusing...
> 
> There is even a /sys/kernel/slab/dentry/shrink ....
> oh please...

We also have /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches and we have learned those are
really terrible interfaces and we have good reasons to not replicate
those into memcg interfaces. Using bad interfaces as an example is not
the way argue for new ones.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs