From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CCA66B004F for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:13:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n5N5DMHX014137 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:13:22 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A48445DE58 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:13:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C9F45DE51 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:13:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060D31DB8038 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:13:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1461DB805A for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:13:21 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:11:47 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hugepages should be accounted as unevictable pages. Message-Id: <20090623141147.8f2cef18.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090623135017.220D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20090623093459.2204.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <1245732411.18339.6.camel@alok-dev1> <20090623135017.220D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: akataria@vmware.com, LKML , Lee Schermerhorn , Dave Hansen , Mel Gorman , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:05:47 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > I'm not sure this unevictable definition is good idea or not. currently > hugepage isn't only non-account memory, but also various kernel memory doesn't > account. > > one of drawback is that zone_page_state(UNEVICTABLE) lost to mean #-of-unevictable-pages. > e.g. following patch is wrong? > > fs/proc/meminfo.c meminfo_proc_show() > ---------------------------- > - K(pages[LRU_UNEVICTABLE]), > + K(pages[LRU_UNEVICTABLE]) + hstate->nr_huge_pages, > > > Plus, I didn't find any practical benefit in this patch. do you have it? > or You only want to natural definition? > > I don't have any strong oppose reason, but I also don't have any strong > agree reason. > I think "don't include Hugepage" is sane. Hugepage is something _special_, now. 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