On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 01:43:11PM -0700, Kalesh Singh wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:23 AM Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:38:02PM -0700, Kalesh Singh wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 4:54 AM Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 03:06:06PM -0700, Kalesh Singh wrote: > > > > > To be able to account the amount of memory a process is keeping pinned > > > > > by open file descriptors add a 'size' field to fdinfo output. > > > > > > > > > > dmabufs fds already expose a 'size' field for this reason, remove this > > > > > and make it a common field for all fds. This allows tracking of > > > > > other types of memory (e.g. memfd and ashmem in Android). > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > - Add Christian's Reviewed-by > > > > > > > > > > Changes from rfc: > > > > > - Split adding 'size' and 'path' into a separate patches, per Christian > > > > > - Split fdinfo seq_printf into separate lines, per Christian > > > > > - Fix indentation (use tabs) in documentaion, per Randy > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > > > drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 1 - > > > > > fs/proc/fd.c | 9 +++++---- > > > > > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Also not sure if it matters that much for your use case, but something > > > > worth noting at least with shmem is that one can do something like: > > > > > > > > # cat /proc/meminfo | grep Shmem: > > > > Shmem: 764 kB > > > > # xfs_io -fc "falloc -k 0 10m" ./file > > > > # ls -alh file > > > > -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Jun 28 07:22 file > > > > # stat file > > > > File: file > > > > Size: 0 Blocks: 20480 IO Block: 4096 regular empty file > > > > # cat /proc/meminfo | grep Shmem: > > > > Shmem: 11004 kB > > > > > > > > ... where the resulting memory usage isn't reflected in i_size (but is > > > > is in i_blocks/bytes). > > > > > > I tried a similar experiment a few times, but I don't see the same > > > results. In my case, there is not any change in shmem. IIUC the > > > fallocate is allocating the disk space not shared memory. > > > > > > > Sorry, it was implied in my previous test was that I was running against > > tmpfs. So regardless of fs, the fallocate keep_size semantics shown in > > both cases is as expected: the underlying blocks are allocated and the > > inode size is unchanged. > > > > What wasn't totally clear to me when I read this patch was 1. whether > > tmpfs refers to Shmem and 2. whether tmpfs allowed this sort of > > operation. The test above seems to confirm both, however, right? E.g., a > > more detailed example: > > > > # mount | grep /tmp > > tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,seclabel,nr_inodes=1048576,inode64) > > # cat /proc/meminfo | grep Shmem: > > Shmem: 5300 kB > > # xfs_io -fc "falloc -k 0 1g" /tmp/file > > # stat /tmp/file > > File: /tmp/file > > Size: 0 Blocks: 2097152 IO Block: 4096 regular empty file > > Device: 22h/34d Inode: 45 Links: 1 > > Access: (0600/-rw-------) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root) > > Context: unconfined_u:object_r:user_tmp_t:s0 > > Access: 2022-06-29 08:04:01.301307154 -0400 > > Modify: 2022-06-29 08:04:01.301307154 -0400 > > Change: 2022-06-29 08:04:01.451312834 -0400 > > Birth: 2022-06-29 08:04:01.301307154 -0400 > > # cat /proc/meminfo | grep Shmem: > > Shmem: 1053876 kB > > # rm -f /tmp/file > > # cat /proc/meminfo | grep Shmem: > > Shmem: 5300 kB > > > > So clearly this impacts Shmem.. was your test run against tmpfs or some > > other (disk based) fs? > > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for clarifying. My issue was tmpfs not mounted at /tmp in my system: > > ==> meminfo.start <== > Shmem: 572 kB > ==> meminfo.stop <== > Shmem: 51688 kB > Ok, makes sense. > > > > FWIW, I don't have any objection to exposing inode size if it's commonly > > useful information. My feedback was more just an fyi that i_size doesn't > > necessarily reflect underlying space consumption (whether it's memory or > > disk space) in more generic cases, because it sounds like that is really > > what you're after here. The opposite example to the above would be > > something like an 'xfs_io -fc "truncate 1t" /tmp/file', which shows a > > 1TB inode size with zero additional shmem usage. > > From these cases, it seems the more generic way to do this is by > calculating the actual size consumed using the blocks. (i_blocks * > 512). So in the latter example 'xfs_io -fc "truncate 1t" /tmp/file' > the size consumed would be zero. Let me know if it sounds ok to you > and I can repost the updated version. > That sounds a bit more useful to me if you're interested in space usage, or at least I don't have a better idea for you. ;) One thing to note is that I'm not sure whether all fs' use i_blocks reliably. E.g., XFS populates stat->blocks via a separate block counter in the XFS specific inode structure (see xfs_vn_getattr()). A bunch of other fs' seem to touch it so perhaps that is just an outlier. You could consider fixing that up, perhaps make a ->getattr() call to avoid it, or just use the field directly if it's useful enough as is and there are no other objections. Something to think about anyways.. Brian > Thanks, > Kalesh > > > > > Brian > > > > > cat /proc/meminfo > meminfo.start > > > xfs_io -fc "falloc -k 0 50m" ./xfs_file > > > cat /proc/meminfo > meminfo.stop > > > tail -n +1 meminfo.st* | grep -i '==\|Shmem:' > > > > > > ==> meminfo.start <== > > > Shmem: 484 kB > > > ==> meminfo.stop <== > > > Shmem: 484 kB > > > > > > ls -lh xfs_file > > > -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 28 15:12 xfs_file > > > > > > stat xfs_file > > > File: xfs_file > > > Size: 0 Blocks: 102400 IO Block: 4096 regular empty file > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kalesh > > > > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* show_fd_locks() never deferences files so a stale value is safe */ > > > > > show_fd_locks(m, file, files); > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.37.0.rc0.161.g10f37bed90-goog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx. > > >
