From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 16:02:27 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Framework for accurate node based statistics In-Reply-To: <43976949.8010205@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <20051206182843.19188.82045.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <439619F9.4030905@yahoo.com.au> <439684C0.9090107@yahoo.com.au> <43976949.8010205@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andi Kleen , Marcelo Tosatti List-ID: On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Nick Piggin wrote: > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Sorry, I think I meant: why don't you just use the "add all counters > > > from all per-cpu of the node" in order to find the node-statistic? > > which function is that? > > > > I'm thinking of get_page_state_node... but that's not quite the same > thing. I guess sum all per-CPU counters from all zones in the node, > but that's going to be costly on big machines. The per cpu counters count when a cpu did an allocation. They do not count on which node the allocation was done and are thereofre not useful to determine the memory use on one node. > So I'm not sure, I guess I don't have any bright ideas... there is the > batching approach used by current pagecache_acct - is something like > that not sufficient either? The framework provides a similar approach by keeping differential counters for each processor. -- 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