[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180425210143.GA10277@castle>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 22:01:49 +0100
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't show nr_indirectly_reclaimable in /proc/vmstat
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:37:26PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > Don't show nr_indirectly_reclaimable in /proc/vmstat,
> > because there is no need in exporting this vm counter
> > to the userspace, and some changes are expected
> > in reclaimable object accounting, which can alter
> > this counter.
> >
>
> I don't think it should be a per-node vmstat, in this case. It appears
> only to be used for the global context. Shouldn't this be handled like
> totalram_pages, total_swap_pages, totalreserve_pages, etc?
Hi, David!
I don't see any reasons why re-using existing infrastructure for
fast vm counters is bad, and why should we re-invent it for this case.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists