On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:58:29 -0200 Rafael Aquini <aquini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 12:20:33PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 01:05:54AM -0200, Rafael Aquini wrote: > > > This patch introduces a new set of vm event counters to keep track of > > > ballooned pages compaction activity. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Other than confirming the thing actually works can any meaningful > > conclusions be drawn from this counters? > > > > I know I have been inconsistent on this myself in the past but recently > > I've been taking the attitude that the counters can be used to fit into > > some other metric. I'm looking to change the compaction counters to be > > able to build a basic cost model for example. The same idea could be > > used for balloons of course but it's a less critical path than > > compaction for THP for example. > > > > Assuming it builds and all the defines are correct when the feature is > > not configured (I didn't check) then there is nothing wrong with the > > patch. However, if it was dropped would it make life very hard or would > > you notice? > > > > Originally, I proposed this patch as droppable (and it's still droppable) > because its major purpose was solely to show the thing working consistently > > OTOH, it might make the life easier to spot breakages if it remains with the > merged bits, and per a reviewer request I removed its 'DROP BEFORE MERGE' > disclaimer. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/8/616 There's a lot to be said for not merging things. I think I'll maintain this as a mm-only patch. That way it's available in linux-next and we can merge it later if a need arises. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
