[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121109122033.GR3886@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:20:33 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/7] mm: add vm event counters for balloon pages
compaction
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 01:05:54AM -0200, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> This patch introduces a new set of vm event counters to keep track of
> ballooned pages compaction activity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
Other than confirming the thing actually works can any meaningful
conclusions be drawn from this counters?
I know I have been inconsistent on this myself in the past but recently
I've been taking the attitude that the counters can be used to fit into
some other metric. I'm looking to change the compaction counters to be
able to build a basic cost model for example. The same idea could be
used for balloons of course but it's a less critical path than
compaction for THP for example.
Assuming it builds and all the defines are correct when the feature is
not configured (I didn't check) then there is nothing wrong with the
patch. However, if it was dropped would it make life very hard or would
you notice?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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