On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:22:03 +0000 kaiyang2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Kaiyang Zhao <kaiyang2@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Printing the promo watermark in zoneinfo just like other watermarks. > This helps users check and verify all the watermarks are appropriate. > > ... > > --- a/mm/vmstat.c > +++ b/mm/vmstat.c > @@ -1725,6 +1725,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, > "\n min %lu" > "\n low %lu" > "\n high %lu" > + "\n promo %lu" > "\n spanned %lu" > "\n present %lu" > "\n managed %lu" > @@ -1734,6 +1735,7 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat, > min_wmark_pages(zone), > low_wmark_pages(zone), > high_wmark_pages(zone), > + wmark_pages(zone, WMARK_PROMO), > zone->spanned_pages, > zone->present_pages, > zone_managed_pages(zone), Maybe. I'll let others opine about the desirability of this. But you made me look at include/linux/mmzone.h #define min_wmark_pages(z) (z->_watermark[WMARK_MIN] + z->watermark_boost) #define low_wmark_pages(z) (z->_watermark[WMARK_LOW] + z->watermark_boost) #define high_wmark_pages(z) (z->_watermark[WMARK_HIGH] + z->watermark_boost) #define wmark_pages(z, i) (z->_watermark[i] + z->watermark_boost) a) how dumb is it that we open-code wmark_pages() three times and then define it! b) For symmetry at least, I guess your patch should add and use promo_wmark_pages(). c) all the above could (and hence should) be static inline C functions.
