From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wj0-f200.google.com (mail-wj0-f200.google.com [209.85.210.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCED6B0388 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wj0-f200.google.com with SMTP id c7so3247549wjb.7 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:54:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d27si1760046wrc.260.2017.02.09.12.54.10 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:54:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 21:54:07 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 staging-next] android: Collect statistics from lowmemorykiller Message-ID: <20170209205407.GF31906@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <9febd4f7-a0a7-5f52-e67b-df3163814ac5@sonymobile.com> <20170209192640.GC31906@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170209200737.GB11098@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170209200737.GB11098@kroah.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: peter enderborg , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Riley Andrews , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org On Thu 09-02-17 21:07:37, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 09-02-17 14:21:45, peter enderborg wrote: > > > This collects stats for shrinker calls and how much > > > waste work we do within the lowmemorykiller. > > > > This doesn't explain why do we need this information and who is going to > > use it. Not to mention it exports it in /proc which is considered a > > stable user API. This is a no-go, especially for something that is still > > lingering in the staging tree without any actuall effort to make it > > fully supported MM feature. I am actually strongly inclined to simply > > drop lmk from the tree completely. > > I thought that someone was working to get the "native" mm features to > work properly with the lmk "feature" Do you recall if that work got > rejected, or just never happened? Never happened AFAIR. There were some attempts to tune the current behavior which has been rejected for one reason or another but I am not really aware of anybody working on moving the code from staging area. I already have this in the to-send queue, just didn't get to post it yet because I planned to polish the reasoning some more. ---