On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:30:54 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's not that I think you're wrong: it *is* an implementation detail. > > But we take a bit of incoherency from batching all over the place, so > > it's a little odd to take a stand over this particular instance of it > > - whether demanding that it'd be fixed, or be documented, which would > > only suggest to users that this is special when it really isn't etc. > > I am not aware of other counter printed in smaps that would suffer from > the same problem, but I haven't checked too deeply so I might be wrong. > > Anyway it seems that I am alone in my position so I will not insist. > If we have any bug report then we can still fix it. A single lru_add_drain_all() right at the top level (in smaps_show()?) won't kill us and should significantly improve this issue. And it might accidentally make some of the other smaps statistics more accurate as well. If not, can we please have a nice comment somewhere appropriate which explains why LazyFree is inaccurate and why we chose to leave it that way? -- 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>
