On 05/11/2013 06:23 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/vm_event_item.h b/include/linux/vm_event_item.h
> index d4b7a18..584c71c 100644
> --- 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_ALLOC_FAILED,
> THP_SPLIT,
> THP_ZERO_PAGE_ALLOC,
> THP_ZERO_PAGE_ALLOC_FAILED,
> diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
> index 7945285..df8dcda 100644
> --- a/mm/vmstat.c
> +++ b/mm/vmstat.c
> @@ -821,6 +821,8 @@ const char * const vmstat_text[] = {
> "thp_fault_fallback",
> "thp_collapse_alloc",
> "thp_collapse_alloc_failed",
> + "thp_write_alloc",
> + "thp_write_alloc_failed",
> "thp_split",
> "thp_zero_page_alloc",
> "thp_zero_page_alloc_failed",
I guess these new counters are _consistent_ with all the others. But,
why do we need a separate "_failed" for each one of these? While I'm
nitpicking, does "thp_write_alloc" mean allocs or _successful_ allocs?
I had to look at the code to tell.
I thihk it's probably safe to combine this patch with the next one.
Breaking them apart just makes it harder to review. If _anything_,
this, plus the use of the counters should go in to a different patch
from the true code changes in "mm: allocate huge pages in
grab_cache_page_write_begin()".
--
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>