> On Wednesday 15 September 2010 10:18:11 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 15 September 2010 05:56:36 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > index 439fc1f..06fc468 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > @@ -368,7 +368,11 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned
> > > > > long addr, unsigned long end, mss->shared_clean += PAGE_SIZE;
> > > > > mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << PSS_SHIFT) / mapcount;
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > - if (pte_dirty(ptent))
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * File-backed pages, now anonymous are dirty
> > > > > + * with respect to the file.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (pte_dirty(ptent) || (vma->vm_file && PageAnon(page)))
> > > > > mss->private_dirty += PAGE_SIZE;
> > > > > else
> > > > > mss->private_clean += PAGE_SIZE;
> > > >
> > > > This is risky than v1. number of dirties are used a lot of application.
> > >
> > > This is exactly to help those applications, as currently after swap-out
> > > and swap-in, the same pages are accounted as "Private_Clean:" instead of
> > > "Private_Dirty:".
> >
> > I don't think so.
>
> Actually this behaviour is observed. With a simple memhog, you can see pages
> which are "Private_Dirty:", become "Swap:" and then to "Private_Clean:". And
> that confused GDB.
As I said, incorrect information is always no good solustion. We should concern
how to provide good and enough information, but not how to lie.
If currect gdb is crappy, it should fix.
> > incorrect infomation bring a lot of confusion rather than
> > its worth.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>