From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757455AbdADHvG (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 02:51:06 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48261 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757218AbdADHvD (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 02:51:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:50:58 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Minchan Kim Cc: Hillf Danton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Vlastimil Babka , Rik van Riel , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] mm, vmscan: add active list aging tracepoint Message-ID: <20170104075058.GA25453@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20161228153032.10821-3-mhocko@kernel.org> <20161229053359.GA1815@bbox> <20161229075243.GA29208@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161230014853.GA4184@bbox> <20161230092636.GA13301@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161230160456.GA7267@bbox> <20161230163742.GK13301@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170103050328.GA15700@bbox> <20170103082122.GA30111@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170104050722.GA17166@bbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170104050722.GA17166@bbox> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 04-01-17 14:07:22, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:21:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > with other tracepoints but that can be helpful because you do not have > > all the tracepoints enabled all the time. So unless you see this > > particular thing as a road block I would rather keep it. > > I didn't know how long this thread becomes lenghy. To me, it was no worth > to discuss. I did best effot to explain my stand with valid points, I think > and don't want to go infinite loop. If you don't agree still, separate > the patch. One includes only necessary things with removing nr_scanned, which > I am happy to ack it. Based upon it, add one more patch you want adding > nr_scanned with your claim. I will reply that thread with my claim and > let's keep an eye on it that whether maintainer will take it or not. To be honest this is just not worth the effort and rather than discussing further I will just drop the nr_scanned slthough I disagree that your concerns regarding this _particular counter_ are really valid. > If maintainer will take it, it's good indication which will represent > we can add more extra tracepoint easily with "might be helpful with someone > although it's redunant" so do not prevent others who want to do > in the future. no we do not work in a precedence system like that. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wj0-f198.google.com (mail-wj0-f198.google.com [209.85.210.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB1A6B025E for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 02:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wj0-f198.google.com with SMTP id j10so114278513wjb.3 for ; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:51:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u8si76739692wmd.98.2017.01.03.23.51.02 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:51:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:50:58 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] mm, vmscan: add active list aging tracepoint Message-ID: <20170104075058.GA25453@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20161228153032.10821-3-mhocko@kernel.org> <20161229053359.GA1815@bbox> <20161229075243.GA29208@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161230014853.GA4184@bbox> <20161230092636.GA13301@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161230160456.GA7267@bbox> <20161230163742.GK13301@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170103050328.GA15700@bbox> <20170103082122.GA30111@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170104050722.GA17166@bbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170104050722.GA17166@bbox> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: Hillf Danton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Vlastimil Babka , Rik van Riel , LKML On Wed 04-01-17 14:07:22, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:21:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > with other tracepoints but that can be helpful because you do not have > > all the tracepoints enabled all the time. So unless you see this > > particular thing as a road block I would rather keep it. > > I didn't know how long this thread becomes lenghy. To me, it was no worth > to discuss. I did best effot to explain my stand with valid points, I think > and don't want to go infinite loop. If you don't agree still, separate > the patch. One includes only necessary things with removing nr_scanned, which > I am happy to ack it. Based upon it, add one more patch you want adding > nr_scanned with your claim. I will reply that thread with my claim and > let's keep an eye on it that whether maintainer will take it or not. To be honest this is just not worth the effort and rather than discussing further I will just drop the nr_scanned slthough I disagree that your concerns regarding this _particular counter_ are really valid. > If maintainer will take it, it's good indication which will represent > we can add more extra tracepoint easily with "might be helpful with someone > although it's redunant" so do not prevent others who want to do > in the future. no we do not work in a precedence system like that. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org