Hi Kirill,
On 03/26/2013 04:40 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
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.
Why when we allocated a new huge page with write(2) is not a write fault?
--
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>