From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261836AbTJMQvY (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:51:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261838AbTJMQvY (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:51:24 -0400 Received: from mail4.bluewin.ch ([195.186.4.74]:49300 "EHLO mail4.bluewin.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261836AbTJMQvX (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:51:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:51:04 +0200 From: Roger Luethi To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: [RFC] State of ru_majflt Message-ID: <20031013165104.GA14720@k3.hellgate.ch> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.0-test6 on i686 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 92 F4 DC 20 57 46 7B 95 24 4E 9E E7 5A 54 DC 1B X-GPG: 1024/80E744BD wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The ru_majflt field of struct rusage doesn't return major page faults -- pages retrieved from cache are counted as well. POSIX and Linux man pages don't seem to cover that particular field, but the values returned are neither what BSD (where Linux got its copy of the struct from) does nor what the field name suggests. A proper solution would probably have filemap_nopage tell its caller the correct return code. Is this considered a bug or is it a documentation issue? How much do we care? Roger