(6/24/12 4:43 PM), David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2012, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >>>> No worth to make fragile ABI. Do you have any benefit? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, because this is exactly where we would discover something like a >>> mm->nr_ptes accounting issue since it would result in an oom kill and we'd >>> notice the mismatch between nr_ptes and rss in the tasklist dump. >> >> Below patch is better, then. tasklist dump should show brief summary and >> final killed process output should show most detail info. And, now all of >> get_mm_rss() callsite got consistent. >> > > No, it's not. > > Your patch is factoring ptes into get_mm_rss() throughout the kernel, my > patch is showing get_mm_rss() and nr_ptes in the oom killer tasklist dump > since they are both (currently) factored in seperately. They are two > functionally different changes. I said they should not showed separetly. That's all. Don't request talk the same repeat. > If you want to factor ptes into get_mm_rss() and make that change > throughout the kernel, then you should patch linux-next which includes my > oom patch, write an actual changelog for why ptes should now be included > in get_mm_rss() -- which I'll nack because it significantly changes > /proc/pid/stat output for applications between kernel versions that we > depend very heavily on -- and propose it seperately. -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>