On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:43:58 -0700 Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:16 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > sorry, I had wrong TO:... > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:02:34 +0900 > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx>, "akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: [PATCH] memcg: add reclaim statistics accounting > > > > > > > > Now, memory cgroup provides poor reclaim statistics per memcg. This > > patch adds statistics for direct/soft reclaim as the number of > > pages scans, the number of page freed by reclaim, the nanoseconds of > > latency at reclaim. > > > > It's good to add statistics before we modify memcg/global reclaim, largely. > > This patch refactors current soft limit status and add an unified update logic. > > > > For example, After #cat 195Mfile > /dev/null under 100M limit. > > Â Â Â Â# cat /cgroup/memory/A/memory.stat > > Â Â Â Â.... > > Â Â Â Âlimit_freed 24592 > > why not "limit_steal" ? > > > Â Â Â Âsoft_steal 0 > > Â Â Â Âlimit_scan 43974 > > Â Â Â Âsoft_scan 0 > > Â Â Â Âlimit_latency 133837417 > > > > nearly 96M caches are freed. scanned twice. used 133ms. > > Does it make sense to split up the soft_steal/scan for bg reclaim and > direct reclaim? The same for the limit_steal/scan. I am now testing > the patch to add the soft_limit reclaim on global ttfp, and i already > have the patch to add the following: > > kswapd_soft_steal 0 > kswapd_soft_scan 0 > direct_soft_steal 0 > direct_soft_scan 0 > kswapd_steal 0 > pg_pgsteal 0 > kswapd_pgscan 0 > pg_scan 0 > I'll not post updated version until the end of holidays but my latest plan is adding limit_direct_free - # of pages freed by limit in foreground (not stealed, you freed by yourself's limit) soft_kswapd_steal - # of pages stealed by kswapd based on soft limit limit_direct_scan - # of pages scanned by limit in foreground soft_kswapd_scan - # of pages scanned by kswapd based on soft limit And then, you can add soft_direct_steal - # of pages stealed by foreground reclaim based on soft limit soft_direct_scan - # of pages scanned by foreground reclaim based on soft limit And kern_direct_steal - # of pages stealed by foreground reclaim at memory shortage. kern_direct_scan - # of pages scanned by foreground reclaim at memory shortage. kern_direct_steal - # of pages stealed by kswapd at memory shortage kern_direct_scan - # of pages scanned by kswapd at memory shortage (Above kern_xxx number includes soft_xxx in it. ) These will show influence by other cgroups. And wmark_bg_free - # of pages freed by watermark in background(not kswapd) wmark_bg_scan - # of pages scanned by watermark in background(not kswapd) Hmm ? too many stats ;) And making current soft_steal/soft_scan planned to be obsolete... Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>