On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 11:46:54 -0800 Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 14:05 +0100, Petr Holasek wrote: > > + for_each_hstate(h) > > + seq_printf(m, > > + "HugePages_Total: %5lu\n" > > + "HugePages_Free: %5lu\n" > > + "HugePages_Rsvd: %5lu\n" > > + "HugePages_Surp: %5lu\n" > > + "Hugepagesize: %8lu kB\n", > > + h->nr_huge_pages, > > + h->free_huge_pages, > > + h->resv_huge_pages, > > + h->surplus_huge_pages, > > + 1UL << (huge_page_order(h) + PAGE_SHIFT - 10)); > > } > > It sounds like now we'll get a meminfo that looks like: > > ... > AnonHugePages: 491520 kB > HugePages_Total: 5 > HugePages_Free: 2 > HugePages_Rsvd: 3 > HugePages_Surp: 1 > Hugepagesize: 2048 kB > HugePages_Total: 2 > HugePages_Free: 1 > HugePages_Rsvd: 1 > HugePages_Surp: 1 > Hugepagesize: 1048576 kB > DirectMap4k: 12160 kB > DirectMap2M: 2082816 kB > DirectMap1G: 2097152 kB > > At best, that's a bit confusing. There aren't any other entries in > meminfo that occur more than once. Plus, this information is available > in the sysfs interface. Why isn't that sufficient? > > Could we do something where we keep the default hpage_size looking like > it does now, but append the size explicitly for the new entries? > > HugePages_Total(1G): 2 > HugePages_Free(1G): 1 > HugePages_Rsvd(1G): 1 > HugePages_Surp(1G): 1 > Let's not change the existing interface, please. Adding new fields: OK. Changing the way in whcih existing fields are calculated: OKish. Renaming existing fields: not OK. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>