On Wed 04-01-17 14:07:22, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:21:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > with other tracepoints but that can be helpful because you do not have > > all the tracepoints enabled all the time. So unless you see this > > particular thing as a road block I would rather keep it. > > I didn't know how long this thread becomes lenghy. To me, it was no worth > to discuss. I did best effot to explain my stand with valid points, I think > and don't want to go infinite loop. If you don't agree still, separate > the patch. One includes only necessary things with removing nr_scanned, which > I am happy to ack it. Based upon it, add one more patch you want adding > nr_scanned with your claim. I will reply that thread with my claim and > let's keep an eye on it that whether maintainer will take it or not. To be honest this is just not worth the effort and rather than discussing further I will just drop the nr_scanned slthough I disagree that your concerns regarding this _particular counter_ are really valid. > If maintainer will take it, it's good indication which will represent > we can add more extra tracepoint easily with "might be helpful with someone > although it's redunant" so do not prevent others who want to do > in the future. no we do not work in a precedence system like that. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>