Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751529AbcL1QkV (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:40:21 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:36820 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750976AbcL1QkT (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:40:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm, vmscan: show LRU name in mm_vmscan_lru_isolate tracepoint To: Michal Hocko References: <20161228153032.10821-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20161228153032.10821-5-mhocko@kernel.org> <20161228160029.GF11470@dhcp22.suse.cz> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Vlastimil Babka , Rik van Riel , LKML From: Nikolay Borisov Message-ID: <1a8baddb-842d-31d0-dede-3fb04ed5d9ae@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:40:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161228160029.GF11470@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1480 Lines: 46 On 28.12.2016 18:00, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 28-12-16 17:50:31, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> On 28.12.2016 17:30, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> From: Michal Hocko >>> >>> mm_vmscan_lru_isolate currently prints only whether the LRU we isolate >>> from is file or anonymous but we do not know which LRU this is. It is >>> useful to know whether the list is file or anonymous as well. Change >> >> Maybe you wanted to say whether the list is ACTIVE/INACTIVE ? > > You are right. I will update the wording to: > " > mm_vmscan_lru_isolate currently prints only whether the LRU we isolate > from is file or anonymous but we do not know which LRU this is. It is > useful to know whether the list is active or inactive as well as we > use the same function to isolate pages for both of them. Change > the tracepoint to show symbolic names of the lru rather. > " > > Does it sound better? It's better. Just one more nit about the " as well as we use the same function to isolate pages for both of them" I think this can be reworded better. The way I understand is - it's better to know whether it's active/inactive since we are using the same function to do both, correct? If so then then perhaps the following is a bit more clear: " It is useful to know whether the list is active or inactive, since we are using the same function to isolate pages from both of them and it's hard to distinguish otherwise. " But as I said - it's a minor nit. > > Thanks! >