From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 508876B004F for ; Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:42:38 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Isolated(anon) and Isolated(file) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Rik van Riel , Wu Fengguang , Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi KOSAKI-san, May I question the addition of Isolated(anon) and Isolated(file) lines to /proc/meminfo? I get irritated by all such "0 kB" lines! I see their appropriateness and usefulness in the Alt-Sysrq-M-style info which accompanies an OOM; and I see that those statistics help you to identify and fix bugs of having too many pages isolated. But IMHO they're too transient to be appropriate in /proc/meminfo: by the time the "cat /proc/meminfo" is done, the situation is very different (or should be once the bugs are fixed). Almost all its numbers are transient, of course, but these seem so much so that I think /proc/meminfo is better off without them (compressing more info into fewer lines). Perhaps I'm in the minority: if others care, what do they think? Hugh -- 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