Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/14/2013 10:50 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/vm_event_item.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/vm_event_item.h
> > @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ enum vm_event_item { PGPGIN, PGPGOUT, PSWPIN, PSWPOUT,
> > THP_FAULT_FALLBACK,
> > THP_COLLAPSE_ALLOC,
> > THP_COLLAPSE_ALLOC_FAILED,
> > + THP_WRITE_ALLOC,
> > + THP_WRITE_FAILED,
> > THP_SPLIT,
> > THP_ZERO_PAGE_ALLOC,
> > THP_ZERO_PAGE_ALLOC_FAILED,
>
> I think these names are a bit terse. It's certainly not _writes_ that
> are failing and "THP_WRITE_FAILED" makes it sound that way.
Right. s/THP_WRITE_FAILED/THP_WRITE_ALLOC_FAILED/
> Also, why do we need to differentiate these from the existing anon-hugepage
> vm stats? The alloc_pages() call seems to be doing the exact same thing in
> the end. Is one more likely to succeed than the other?
Existing stats specify source of thp page: fault or collapse. When we
allocate a new huge page with write(2) it's nither fault nor collapse. I
think it's reasonable to introduce new type of event for that.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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>