[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <04bd46b5-b67b-9b0c-edb9-7e92427b9cef@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 18:59:00 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@...il.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: introduce NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES
On 04/25/2018 05:55 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 05:43:39PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote:
>> One such case I have encountered is that of the ION page pool. The page pool
>> registers a shrinker. When not in any memory pressure page pool can go high
>> and thus cause an mmap to fail when OVERCOMMIT_GUESS is set. I can send
>> a patch to account ION page pool pages in NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES.
>
> Why not just account them as NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE? I know it's not slab, but
> other than that mis-naming, it seems like it'll do the right thing.
Hm I think it would be confusing for anyone trying to correlate the
number with /proc/slabinfo - the numbers there wouldn't add up.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists