i-kitayama(a)ap.jp.nec.com wrote: Hi Itaru, I confused about the logic of your patch. In 2.6.22, the kmem_cache_node was declared like so: struct kmem_cache_node { spinlock_t list_lock; /* Protect partial list and nr_partial */ unsigned long nr_partial; atomic_long_t nr_slabs; struct list_head partial; struct list_head full; }; In 2.6.23 and above, it is declared like so: struct kmem_cache_node { spinlock_t list_lock; /* Protect partial list and nr_partial */ unsigned long nr_partial; atomic_long_t nr_slabs; struct list_head partial; #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG struct list_head full; #endif }; Your patch does this: --- a/memory.c +++ b/memory.c @@ -13745,8 +13745,11 @@ do_node_lists_slub(struct meminfo *si, ulong node_ptr, int node) "page.lru.next", RETURN_ON_ERROR)) return; } - - if (INVALID_MEMBER(kmem_cache_node_full)) { + #define SLAB_STORE_USER (0x00010000UL) + ulong flags = ULONG(si->cache_buf); + + if (INVALID_MEMBER(kmem_cache_node_full) && + !(flags & SLAB_STORE_USER)) { fprintf(fp, "NODE %d FULL:\n (not tracked)\n", node); return; } For 2.6.22 only, kmem_cache_node.full is always there, so in that case, the SLAB_STORE_USER flag would never get checked above, and the full slab would be shown as "(empty)". And for 2.6.23 kernels and above, the SLAB_STORE_USER flag would *only* be checked if CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG was *not* set. And if CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG is not set, then full slabs would not be tracked because add_full() is a no-op -- regardless whether the SLAB_STORE_USER flag was set or not. Shouldn't it be "||" instead of "&&"? Dave