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?
or do you think that we should account it in separate stats?
-ss
