From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:29:11 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH][for -mm] fix accounting in vmscan.c for memory controller Message-Id: <20071211142911.4b8091d2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <475E1CBC.4070408@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20071211112644.221a8dc5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <475E1CBC.4070408@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Andrew Morton , "yamamoto@valinux.co.jp" , LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "riel@redhat.com" List-ID: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:44:36 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > Looks good to me. > > Acked-by: Balbir Singh > > TODO: > > 1. Should we have vm_events for the memory controller as well? > May be in the longer term > ALLOC_STALL is recoreded as failcnt, I think. I think DIRECT can be accoutned easily. But I'm not in hurry very much, because all reclaimation is DIRECT, now. After we implement background reclaim, we should consider it. Thanks, -Kame -- 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