On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:23:54 +0200 Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:29:24AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:32:21 +0200 > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:38:39PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:17:26 +0200 > > > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:56:09PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:42:45 +0200 > > > > > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'm confused. > > > > If vmscan is scanning in C's LRU, > > (memcg == root) : C_scan_internal ++ > > (memcg != root) : C_scan_external ++ > > Yes. > > > Why A_scan_external exists ? It's 0 ? > > > > I think we can never get numbers. > > Kswapd/direct reclaim should probably be accounted as A_external, > since A has no limit, so reclaim pressure can not be internal. > hmm, ok. All memory pressure from memcg/system other than the memcg itsef is all external. > On the other hand, one could see the amount of physical memory in the > machine as A's limit and account global reclaim as A_internal. > > I think the former may be more natural. > > That aside, all memcgs should have the same statistics, obviously. > Scripts can easily deal with counters being zero. If items differ > between cgroups, that would suck a lot. So, when I improve direct-reclaim path, I need to see score in scan_internal. How do you think about background-reclaim-per-memcg ? Should be counted into scan_internal ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>