On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 07:24:52PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> And how it's not an ABI break?
I don't think this is an ABI break because the current behaviour is not
changed unless you write "5" to /proc/pid/clear_refs. If you do, you are
explicitly requesting the new functionality.
> We have never-lowering VmHWM for 9+ years. How can you know that nobody
> expects this behaviour?
This is why we sent an RFC [1] several weeks ago. We expect this to be
used mainly by performance-related tools (e.g. profilers) and from the
comments in the code [2] VmHWM seems to be a best-effort counter. If this
is strictly a no-go, I can only think of the following two alternatives:
1. Add an extra resettable field to /proc/pid/status (e.g.
resettable_hiwater_rss). While this doesn't violate the current
definition of VmHWM, it adds an extra line to /proc/pid/status,
which I think is a much bigger issue.
2. Introduce a new proc fs file to task_mmu (e.g.
/proc/pid/profiler_stats), but this feels like overengineering.
> And why do you reset hiwater_rss, but not hiwater_vm?
This is a good point. Should we reset both using the same flag, or
introduce a new one ("6")?
[1] lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1412.1/01877.html
[2] task_mmu.c:32: "... such snapshots can always be inconsistent."
Petr
--
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>