Re: computing drop-able caches

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 01:21:47PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On 01/28/2016 05:55 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 05:29:41PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >>On 01/28/2016 05:03 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >>[regarding MemAvaiable]
> >>
> >>This new metric purportedly helps usrespace assess available memory. But,
> >>its again based on heuristic, it takes 1/2 of page cache as reclaimable..
> >No, it takes the smaller value of cache/2 and the low watermark, which
> >is a fraction of memory. Actually, that does look a little weird. Rik?
> >
> >We don't age cache without memory pressure, you don't know how much is
> >used until you start taking some away. Heuristics is all we can offer.
> 
> With a simple busybox root system I get this,
> 
> MemTotal:          16273996 kB
> MemFree:          16137920 kB
> MemAvailable:   16046132 kB
> 
> shouldn't MemAvailable be at least the same as MemFree ? I changed the code
> somewhat so it subtracted the wmark_low only, or the pagecache/2 only, both
> are still under MemFree. This system has very little drop-able caches.

No, a portion of memory is reserved for the kernel and not available
to userland. If the kernel doesn't use it it will remain free. Hence
the lower MemAvailable.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux