On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:07:56AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 21-10-15 14:49:54, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > memory.current on the root level doesn't add anything that wouldn't be
> > more accurate and detailed using system statistics. It already doesn't
> > include slabs, and it'll be a
On Wed 21-10-15 14:49:54, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> memory.current on the root level doesn't add anything that wouldn't be
> more accurate and detailed using system statistics. It already doesn't
> include slabs, and it'll be a pain to keep in sync when further memory
> types are accounted in the
On Wed 21-10-15 14:49:54, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> memory.current on the root level doesn't add anything that wouldn't be
> more accurate and detailed using system statistics. It already doesn't
> include slabs, and it'll be a pain to keep in sync when further memory
> types are accounted in the
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:07:56AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 21-10-15 14:49:54, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > memory.current on the root level doesn't add anything that wouldn't be
> > more accurate and detailed using system statistics. It already doesn't
> > include slabs, and it'll be a
memory.current on the root level doesn't add anything that wouldn't be
more accurate and detailed using system statistics. It already doesn't
include slabs, and it'll be a pain to keep in sync when further memory
types are accounted in the memory controller. Remove it.
Note that this applies to
memory.current on the root level doesn't add anything that wouldn't be
more accurate and detailed using system statistics. It already doesn't
include slabs, and it'll be a pain to keep in sync when further memory
types are accounted in the memory controller. Remove it.
Note that this applies to
6 matches
Mail list logo
