On 10/21/2016 12:59 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:33:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 20-10-16 14:11:49, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> Hi, I'm wondering if people would find this useful. If you think it is, and
> to not make performance worse, I could also make sure in proper submission
> that values are not read via global_page_state() multiple times etc...
I definitely find this information useful and hate to do the math all
the time but on the other hand this is quite fragile and I can imagine
we can easily forget to add something there and provide a misleading
information to the userspace. So I would be worried with a long term
maintainability of this.
This will result in valid memory usage by subsystems like the XFS
buffer cache being reported as "unaccounted". Given this cache
(whose size is shrinker controlled) can grow to gigabytes in size
under various metadata intensive workloads, there's every chance
that such reporting will make users incorrectly think they have a
massive memory leak....
Is the XFS buffer cache accounted (and visible) somewhere then? I'd say getting
such large consumers to become visible on the same level as others would be
another advantage...
And yeah, I can even recall a bug report, where I had to do the calculation
myself and it looked like a big leak, and it took some effort to connect it to
xfs buffers. I'd very much welcome for it to be more obvious.
Vlastimil
Cheers,
Dave.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>