On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:10:00 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:13:11 +0530 > > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Expose the failcnt details to userspace similar to memory and memsw. > > > > Why? > > > > to help us find whether there was an allocation failure due to HugeTLB > limit. How are we to know that is that useful enough to justify expanding the kernel API? Yes, regular memcg has it, but that isn't a reason. Do we know that people are using that? That it is useful? Also, "cnt" is not a word. It should be "failcount" or, even better, "failure_count". Or, smarter, "failures". But we screwed that up a long time ago and can't fix it. -- 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>