[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <506066E3.6050705@parallels.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:57:55 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"<devel@...nvz.org>" <devel@...nvz.org>,
"<linux-mm@...ck.org>" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/16] consider a memcg parameter in kmem_create_cache
On 09/24/2012 05:56 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> The reason I say it is orthogonal, is that people will still want to see
>> their caches in /proc/slabinfo, regardless of wherever else they'll be.
>> It was a requirement from Pekka in one of the first times I posted this,
>> IIRC.
>
> They want to see total counts there true. But as I said we already have a
> duplication of the statistics otherwise. We have never done the scheme
> that you propose. That is unexpected. I would not expect the numbers to be
> there.
>
I myself personally believe it can potentially clutter slabinfo, and
won't put my energy in defending the current implementation. What I
don't want is to keep switching between implementations.
Pekka, Tejun, what do you guys say here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists