On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:17:01AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 04/26/2018 11:55 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > >>> Don't show nr_indirectly_reclaimable in /proc/vmstat, > >>> because there is no need in exporting this vm counter > >>> to the userspace, and some changes are expected > >>> in reclaimable object accounting, which can alter > >>> this counter. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This is quite a hack. I would much rather revert the counter and fixed > >> it the way Vlastimil has proposed. But if there is a strong opposition > >> to the revert then this is probably the simples thing to do. Therefore > >> > > > > Implementing this counter as a vmstat doesn't make much sense based on how > > it's used. Do you have a link to what Vlastimil proposed? I haven't seen > > mention of alternative ideas. > > It was in the original thread, see e.g. > <08524819-14ef-81d0-fa90-d7af13c6b9d5@xxxxxxx> > > However it will take some time to get that in mainline, and meanwhile > the current implementation does prevent a DOS. So I doubt it can be > fully reverted - as a compromise I just didn't want the counter to > become ABI. TBH though, other people at LSF/MM didn't seem concerned > that /proc/vmstat is an ABI that we can't change (i.e. counters have > been presumably removed in the past already). > Thank you, Vlastimil! That pretty much matches my understanding of the case. BTW, are you planning to work on supporting reclaimable objects by slab allocators? Thanks!
