On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:31:45 -0700 Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 15:47 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > > > It'll turn into another one of our infinite number of > > > capabilities. Does anything actually care about statistics at KB > > > granularity these days? > > > > Changing that to MB may also break things. It may be better to have > > consistent system for access control to memory management counters > > that are not related to a process. > > We could also just _effectively_ make it output in MB: > > foo = foo & ~(1<<20) I do not think that does what you intend 8) I do like the idea - it avoids any interfaces vanishing and surprise breakages while only CAP_SYS_whatever needs the real numbers -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>