On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:10:00 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" [off-list ref] wrote:

Andrew Morton [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:13:11 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Expose the failcnt details to userspace similar to memory and memsw.

Why?

to help us find whether there was an allocation failure due to HugeTLB
limit. 

How are we to know that is that useful enough to justify expanding the
kernel API?

Yes, regular memcg has it, but that isn't a reason.  Do we know that
people are using that?  That it is useful?

Also, "cnt" is not a word.  It should be "failcount" or, even better,
"failure_count".  Or, smarter, "failures".  But we screwed that up a
long time ago and can't fix it.


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>