On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 11:02 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 10:57:07 -0700 "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what applications rely on this hint, but if they are just > > > some test scripts, I think it should be fine. I don't think we > > > guarantee the test scripts won't get broken. AFAIK some test scripts > > > rely on the kernel dmesg text, for example, OOMs. And the meaning of > > > the fields do change, for example, inactive anon of /proc/meminfo, > > > which was changed by the patchset which put anon pages on inactive > > > list first instead of active list. We already noticed the abnormal > > > value from our monitoring tool when we adopted 5.10+ kernel. And > > > /proc/vmstat also had some fields renamed, for example, > > > workingset_refault of /proc/vmstat, it was split to > > > workseting_refault_anon and workingset_refault_file, so we had to > > > update our monitoring scripts accordingly. I think /proc/meminfo and > > > /proc/vmstat are more heavily used than smaps. > > > > > > > Thanks for the great context. My guess is, right now, THPelligible is more > > useful as-is than if we were to relax it to MADV_COLLAPSE eligibility. As such, > > I'm fine dropping this until a stronger and more immediate usecase presents > > itself. Thanks for checking my rationale here. > > So... should I drop this patch? Ya, I don't think I have a solid argument for inclusion right now. Thanks Andrew, Zach
