Re: [PATCH][for -mm] fix accounting in vmscan.c for memory controller

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:44:36 +0530
Balbir Singh <[email protected]> wrote:

> Looks good to me.
> 
> Acked-by: Balbir Singh <[email protected]>
> 
> 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH][for -mm] fix accounting in vmscan.c for memory controller
  - From: Balbir Singh <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH][for -mm] fix accounting in vmscan.c for memory controller
  - From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH][for -mm] fix accounting in vmscan.c for memory controller
  - From: Balbir Singh <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH][for -mm] fix accounting in vmscan.c for memory controller
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH][for -mm] fix accounting in vmscan.c for memory controller
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH][for -mm] fix accounting in vmscan.c for memory controller
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH][for -mm] fix accounting in vmscan.c for memory controller
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]