On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > How about the names nr_dirty_accumulated and nr_writeback_accumulated? > It seems more consistent, for both the interface and code (see below). > I'm not really sure though. Those names don't seem to right to me. I admit I like "nr_dirtied" and "nr_cleaned" that seems most understood. These numbers also get very big pretty fast so I don't think it's hard to infer. >> In order to track the "cleaned" and "dirtied" counts we added two >> vm_stat_items. Per memory node stats have been added also. So we can >> see per node granularity: >> >> # cat /sys/devices/system/node/node20/writebackstat >> Node 20 pages_writeback: 0 times >> Node 20 pages_dirtied: 0 times > > I'd prefer the name "vmstat" over "writebackstat", and propose to > migrate items from /proc/zoneinfo over time. zoneinfo is a terrible > interface for scripting. I like vmstat also. I can do that. > Also, are there meaningful usage of per-node writeback stats? For us yes. We use fake numa nodes to implement cgroup memory isolation. This allows us to see what the writeback behaviour is like per cgroup. > The numbers are naturally per-bdi ones instead. But if we plan to > expose them for each bdi, this patch will need to be implemented > vastly differently. Currently I have no plans to do that. mrubin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
