On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 7:24 PM brookxu [off-list ref] wrote:

Thanks for your time.

Vipin Sharma wrote on 2021/9/14 12:51 上午:

quoted

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:01 PM brookxu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Chunguang Xu <redacted>

Introduce misc.events and misc.events.local to make it easier for

I thought Tejun only gave go ahead for misc.events and not for
misc.events.local.

Maybe I missed something. I think events.local is somewhat useful. For
example, the events of node A is large. If we need to determine whether
it is caused by the max of node A, if there is no events.local, then we
need to traverse the events of the child nodes and compare them with
node A. This is a bit complicated. If there is events.local, we can do
it very easily. Should we keep the events.local interface？

Tejun mentioned in his previous email that he prefers the hierarchical
one. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YTuX6Cpv1kg+DHmJ@slm.duckdns.org/ (local)

I agree with you that it's easier to identify the constraint cgroup
with the local file. However, there is one downside also, which is if
a cgroup gets deleted then that local information is lost, we will
need a hierarchical reporting to observe the resource constraint. I
will be fine with both files but if I have to choose one I am now more
inclined towards hierarchical (events).

Thanks
Vipin