[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180807151146.GB3978217@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 08:11:46 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennisszhou@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, kernel-team@...com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: add percpu populated pages count to meminfo
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 02:12:06PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > @@ -121,6 +122,7 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > (unsigned long)VMALLOC_TOTAL >> 10);
> > show_val_kb(m, "VmallocUsed: ", 0ul);
> > show_val_kb(m, "VmallocChunk: ", 0ul);
> > + show_val_kb(m, "PercpuPopulated:", pcpu_nr_populated_pages());
>
> Populated? Can we avoid this for simplicities sake: "Percpu"?
>
> We do not count pages that are not present elsewhere either and those
> counters do not have "populated" in them.
Yeah, let's do "Percpu".
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists