On Mon 29-08-16 16:37:04, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Sorry for a late reply, I was busy with other stuff] > > On Mon 22-08-16 15:44:53, Sonny Rao wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > But what about the private_clean and private_dirty? Surely > > those are more generally useful for calculating a lower bound on > > process memory usage without additional knowledge? > > I guess private_clean can be used as a reasonable estimate. I was thinking about this more and I think I am wrong here. Even truly MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON will be in private_dirty. So private_clean will become not all that interesting and similarly misleading as its _dirty variant (mmaped file after [m]sync should become _clean) and that doesn't mean the memory will get freed after the process which maps it terminates. Take shmem as an example again. > private_dirty less so because it may refer to e.g. tmpfs which is not > mapped by other process and so no memory would be freed after unmap > without removing the file. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
