On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, Dennis Zhou wrote: > diff --git a/fs/proc/meminfo.c b/fs/proc/meminfo.c > index 2fb04846ed11..ddd5249692e9 100644 > --- a/fs/proc/meminfo.c > +++ b/fs/proc/meminfo.c > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > #include <linux/mman.h> > #include <linux/mmzone.h> > #include <linux/proc_fs.h> > +#include <linux/percpu.h> > #include <linux/quicklist.h> > #include <linux/seq_file.h> > #include <linux/swap.h> > @@ -121,6 +122,7 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > (unsigned long)VMALLOC_TOTAL >> 10); > show_val_kb(m, "VmallocUsed: ", 0ul); > show_val_kb(m, "VmallocChunk: ", 0ul); > + show_val_kb(m, "PercpuPopulated:", pcpu_nr_populated_pages());
Populated? Can we avoid this for simplicities sake: "Percpu"? We do not count pages that are not present elsewhere either and those counters do not have "populated" in them. > int pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages; > > +/* > + * The number of populated pages in use by the allocator, protected by > + * pcpu_lock. This number is kept per a unit per chunk (i.e. when a page > gets > + * allocated/deallocated, it is allocated/deallocated in all units of a chunk > + * and increments/decrements this count by 1). > + */ > +static int pcpu_nr_populated; pcpu_nr_pages?
