From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: count reclaimable pages per BDI From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <20070421025521.8d77072e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070420155154.898600123@chello.nl> <20070420155503.222304356@chello.nl> <20070421025521.8d77072e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:04:24 +0200 Message-Id: <1177153464.2934.39.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu, neilb@suse.de, dgc@sgi.com, tomoki.sekiyama.qu@hitachi.com, nikita@clusterfs.com, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, yingchao.zhou@gmail.com List-ID: On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 02:55 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:52:01 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Count per BDI reclaimable pages; nr_reclaimable = nr_dirty + nr_unstable. > > hm. Aggregating dirty and unstable at inc/dec time is a bit kludgy. If > later on we want to know just "dirty" then we're in trouble. > > I can see the logic behind it though. > > Perhaps one could have separate BDI_DIRTY and BDI_UNSTABLE and treat them > separately at inc/dec time, but give them the same numerical value, so > they in fact refer to the same counter. That's kludgy too. :-( I struggled with it too; don't have a ready solution either. I'll do whatever the consensus agrees upon. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org