[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180427185708.GA2444@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:57:08 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't show nr_indirectly_reclaimable in /proc/vmstat
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:41:31AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> > It was in the original thread, see e.g.
> > <08524819-14ef-81d0-fa90-d7af13c6b9d5@...e.cz>
> >
> > However it will take some time to get that in mainline, and meanwhile
> > the current implementation does prevent a DOS. So I doubt it can be
> > fully reverted - as a compromise I just didn't want the counter to
> > become ABI. TBH though, other people at LSF/MM didn't seem concerned
> > that /proc/vmstat is an ABI that we can't change (i.e. counters have
> > been presumably removed in the past already).
> >
>
> What prevents this from being a simple atomic_t that gets added to in
> __d_alloc(), subtracted from in __d_free_external_name(), and read in
> si_mem_available() and __vm_enough_memory()?
I'd think you'd want one atomic_t per NUMA node at least ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists