On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 01:49:10PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 01/13/2015 01:43 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 09:14:15PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > >> We're going to account pmd page tables too. Let's rename mm->nr_pgtables > >> to something more generic. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > >> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > >> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ void task_mem(struct seq_file *m, struct mm_struct *mm) > >> data << (PAGE_SHIFT-10), > >> mm->stack_vm << (PAGE_SHIFT-10), text, lib, > >> (PTRS_PER_PTE * sizeof(pte_t) * > >> - atomic_long_read(&mm->nr_ptes)) >> 10, > >> + atomic_long_read(&mm->nr_pgtables)) >> 10, > > > > This implies that (PTRS_PER_PTE * sizeof(pte_t)) = (PTRS_PER_PMD * sizeof(pmd_t)) > > which might be true for all archs, right? > > I wonder if powerpc is OK on this front today. This diagram: > > http://linux-mm.org/PageTableStructure > > says that they use a 128-byte "pte" table when mapping 16M pages. I > wonder if they bump mm->nr_ptes for these. It looks like this doesn't matter. The statistics here prints the size of summary memory occupied for pte_t entries, here PTRS_PER_PTE * sizeof(pte_t) is only valid for, once we start accounting pmd into same counter it implies that PTRS_PER_PTE == PTRS_PER_PMD, which is not true for all archs (if I understand the idea of accounting here right). -- 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>