Thread (20 messages) 20 messages, 4 authors, 2021-01-30

Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_alloc: count CMA pages per zone and print them in /proc/zoneinfo

From: David Hildenbrand <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-28 22:05:40
Also in: linux-api, lkml

Am 28.01.2021 um 22:54 schrieb David Rientjes [off-list ref]:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, David Hildenbrand wrote:
quoted
diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
index 7758486097f9..957680db41fa 100644
--- a/mm/vmstat.c
+++ b/mm/vmstat.c
@@ -1650,6 +1650,11 @@ static void zoneinfo_show_print(struct seq_file *m, pg_data_t *pgdat,
          zone->spanned_pages,
          zone->present_pages,
          zone_managed_pages(zone));
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
+    seq_printf(m,
+           "\n        cma      %lu",
+           zone->cma_pages);
+#endif

   seq_printf(m,
          "\n        protection: (%ld",
Hmm, not sure about this.  If cma is only printed for CONFIG_CMA, we can't 
distinguish between (1) a kernel without your patch without including some 
version checking and (2) a kernel without CONFIG_CMA enabled.  IOW, 
"cma 0" carries value: we know immediately that we do not have any CMA 
pages on this zone, period.

/proc/zoneinfo is also not known for its conciseness so I think printing 
"cma 0" even for !CONFIG_CMA is helpful :)

I think this #ifdef should be removed and it should call into a 
zone_cma_pages(struct zone *zone) which returns 0UL if disabled.
Yeah, that’s also what I proposed in a sub-thread here.

The last option would be going the full mile and not printing nr_free_cma. Code might get a bit uglier though, but we could also remove that stats counter ;)

I don‘t particularly care, while printing „0“ might be easier, removing nr_free_cma might be cleaner.

But then, maybe there are tools that expect that value to be around on any kernel?

Thoughts?

Thanks

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help