Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 04:43:12PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
2 questions:
why is there data in the FS cache that isn't owned by (the mmap
of) the process that caused it to be paged in in the first place?
The filesystem cache is shared among processes because the filesystem
is also shared among processes. If another task were to access the
same file, we still should only have one copy of that data in memory.
That's irrelevant to the question. As I already explained, the first 16GB that
was paged in didn't behave this way. Perhaps "owned" was the wrong word, since
this is a MAP_SHARED mapping. But the point is that the memory is not being
accounted in slapd's process size, when it was before, up to 16GB.
It sounds to me like slapd is itself caching all the data it reads.
You're misreading the information then. slapd is doing no caching of its own,
its RSS and SHR memory size are both the same. All it is using is the mmap,
nothing else. The RSS == SHR == FS cache, up to 16GB. RSS is always == SHR,
but above 16GB they grow more slowly than the FS cache.
If that is true, shouldn't it really be using direct IO to prevent
this double buffering of filesystem data in memory?
There is no double buffering.
is there a tunable knob to discourage the page cache from stealing
from the process?
Try reducing /proc/sys/vm/swappiness, which ranges from 0-100 and
defaults to 60.
I've already tried setting it to 0 with no effect.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
--
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>