On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:49 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:13 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:43 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 04:18:44PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:12 PM Arjun Roy <arjunroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:48 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > Historically we have a corresponding vmstat counter to each charged page.
> > > > > > It helps with finding accounting/stastistics issues: we can check that
> > > > > > memory.current ~= anon + file + sock + slab + percpu + stack.
> > > > > > It would be nice to preserve such ability.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps one option would be to have it count as a file page, or have a
> > > > > new category.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh these are actually already accounted for in NR_FILE_MAPPED.
> > >
> > > Well, it's confusing. Can't we fix this by looking at the new page memcg flag?
> >
> > Yes we can. I am inclined more towards just using NR_FILE_PAGES (as
> > Arjun suggested) instead of adding a new metric.
>
> IMHO I tend to agree with Roman, it sounds confusing. I'm not sure how
> people relies on the counter to have ballpark estimation about the
> amount of reclaimable memory for specific memcg, but they are
> unreclaimable. And, I don't think they are accounted to
> NR_ACTIVE_FILE/NR_INACTIVE_FILE, right? So, the disparity between
> NR_FILE_PAGES and NR_{IN}ACTIVE_FILE may be confusing either.
>
Please note that due to shmem/tmpfs there is already disparity between
NR_FILE_PAGES and NR_{IN}ACTIVE_FILE.
BTW I don't have a strong opinion against adding a new metric. If
there is consensus we can add one.
