[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180412061859.GR23400@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:18:59 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Zi Yan <zi.yan@...t.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] mm: migrate: vm event counter for hugepage
migration
On Wed 11-04-18 17:09:25, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I wrote patches introducing separate vm event counters for hugepage migration
> (both for hugetlb and thp.)
> Hugepage migration is different from normal page migration in event frequency
> and/or how likely it succeeds, so maintaining statistics for them in mixed
> counters might not be helpful both for develors and users.
This is quite a lot of code to be added se we should better document
what it is intended for. Sure I understand your reasonaning about huge
pages are more likely to fail but is this really worth a separate
counter? Do you have an example of how this would be useful?
If we are there then what about different huge page sizes (for hugetlb)?
Do we need per-hstate stats?
In other words, is this really worth it?
> include/linux/vm_event_item.h | 7 +++
> mm/migrate.c | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> mm/vmstat.c | 8 ++++
> 3 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists