On 09/24/2012 07:38 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On 09/24/2012 05:56 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: >>> >>>> The reason I say it is orthogonal, is that people will still want to see >>>> their caches in /proc/slabinfo, regardless of wherever else they'll be. >>>> It was a requirement from Pekka in one of the first times I posted this, >>>> IIRC. >>> >>> They want to see total counts there true. But as I said we already have a >>> duplication of the statistics otherwise. We have never done the scheme >>> that you propose. That is unexpected. I would not expect the numbers to be >>> there. > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I myself personally believe it can potentially clutter slabinfo, and >> won't put my energy in defending the current implementation. What I >> don't want is to keep switching between implementations. >> >> Pekka, Tejun, what do you guys say here? > > So Christoph is proposing that the new caches appear somewhere under > the cgroups directory and /proc/slabinfo includes aggregated counts, > right? I'm certainly OK with that. > Just for clarification, I am not sure about the aggregate counts - although it surely makes sense. Christoph, is that what you're proposing ? -- 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>