From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f199.google.com (mail-qk0-f199.google.com [209.85.220.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B476B0253 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:31:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk0-f199.google.com with SMTP id o187so1980959qke.1 for ; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 06:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.156.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f65si4776748qkj.405.2017.11.03.06.31.48 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Nov 2017 06:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vA3DU2wJ048561 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:31:47 -0400 Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.109]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2e0p7e3v7a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 09:31:47 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:31:44 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:31:37 +0100 From: Gerald Schaefer Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] lsmem/chmem: add memory zone awareness In-Reply-To: <20171103101104.kw6xoxust3r7f7v3@ws.net.home> References: <20170927174446.20459-1-gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com> <20171018114009.7b4iax6536un5bnr@ws.net.home> <20171102175408.18d4eafc@thinkpad> <20171103101104.kw6xoxust3r7f7v3@ws.net.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20171103143137.35c41e7f@thinkpad> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Karel Zak Cc: util-linux@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , linux-mm , Heiko Carstens , Andre Wild On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:11:04 +0100 Karel Zak wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 05:54:08PM +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote: > > Sorry for the late answer. I'm not sure if I understand the problem, it > > "works as designed" that the range merging is done based on the output > > columns, but I see that it was not really described as such. So I do > > like the note that you added with the above mentioned commit. > > > > However, regarding the --split option, I think it may be confusing at > > least for human users, if an "lsmem -oRANGE" will now print more than > > one range, even if this is now based on a "fixed" set of default columns > > that are used for merging (but "subject to change" according to the man > > page). > > OK, I think we can support both concepts :-) I have modified lsmem to: > > - follow output columns for split policy by default (= your original implementation) > - the --split is optional and may be used to override the default behavior > > it means for humans it's probably less concussing and advanced users may > define by --split another way how to generate the ranges. > > I think it's good compromise and it's backwardly compatible with > the previous version. OK? Yes, that looks good. > > If yes, I need to backport this change to RHEL7.5 :-) > Yes, please :-) > > I also do not really see the benefit for script usage, at least if we > > define it as "expected behavior" to have the ranges merged based on the > > We want to keep it user friendly. The "expected behavior" (now > default) forces you to parse lsmem output to filter out unnecessary > columns (if you care about RANGE only). > > And in all our utils the --output option really control the output, but > no another behavior. OK, that makes sense. I did not have any output selection in the original implementation, and also no focus on script usage, but as (maybe so far the only) human user I did get confused by the new range merging. Regards, Gerald -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org