On 05/08/2012 02:42 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But there is another aspect: those dead caches have one thing in common,
which is the fact that no new objects will ever be allocated on them. You
can't tune them, or do anything with them. I believe it is misleading to
include them in slabinfo.
The fact that the caches change names - to append "dead" may also break
tools, if that is what you are concerned about.
For all the above, I think a better semantics for slabinfo is to include the
active caches, and leave the dead ones somewhere else.
Can these "dead caches" still hold on to physical memory? If so, they
must appear in /proc/slabinfo.
Yes, if they didn't, I would show them nowhere, instead of in a separate
file.
But okay, that's why I sent a separate RFC for that part.
I will revert this behavior.
--
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>