On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:02:45PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (01/13/17 15:47), Minchan Kim wrote: > [..] > > > > Could you elaborate a bit? Do you mean this? > > > > > > > > ret = scnprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, > > > > "%8llu %8llu %8llu %8lu %8ld %8llu %8lu\n", > > > > orig_size << PAGE_SHIFT, > > > > > > > > (u64)atomic64_read(&zram->stats.compr_data_size), > > > > mem_used << PAGE_SHIFT, > > > > zram->limit_pages << PAGE_SHIFT, > > > > max_used << PAGE_SHIFT, > > > > // (u64)atomic64_read(&zram->stats.zero_pages), > > > > (u64)atomic64_read(&zram->stats.same_pages), > > > > pool_stats.pages_compacted); > > > > > > yes, correct. > > > > > > do we need to export it as two different stats (zero_pages and > > > same_pages), if those are basically same thing internally? > > > > So, let summary up. > > > > 1. replace zero_page stat into same page stat in mm_stat > > 2. s/zero_pages/same_pages/Documentation/blockdev/zram.txt > > 3. No need to warn to "cat /sys/block/zram0/mm_stat" user to see zero_pages > > about semantic change > > 1) account zero_page and same_pages in one attr. > > this already is in the patch. > > 2) do not rename zero_pages attr. > > we can't do this so fast, I think. > > > > 3. No need to warn to "cat /sys/block/zram0/mm_stat" user to see zero_pages > > about semantic change > > yes. we just _may_ have more pages (depending on data pattern) which we treat > as "zero" pages internally. this results in lower memory consumption. I don't > think warn users about this change is necessary; they won't be able to do > anything about it anyway. zero_pages stat is pretty much just a fun number to > know. isn't it? >
I just wanted to confirm your thought. I hope anyone doesn't is sensitive on that number. ;) Let's replace zero_page stat field in mm_stat. Thanks.
