Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268301AbUJOSrq (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:47:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268306AbUJOSrq (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:47:46 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:23692 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268301AbUJOSre (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:47:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:47:13 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Albert Cahalan , Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel mailing list , Andrew Morton OSDL , Albert Cahalan Subject: Re: per-process shared information Message-ID: <20041015184713.GO5607@holomorphy.com> References: <1097846353.2674.13298.camel@cube> <20041015162000.GB17849@dualathlon.random> <1097857912.2669.13548.camel@cube> <20041015171355.GD17849@dualathlon.random> <1097862714.2666.13650.camel@cube> <20041015181446.GF17849@dualathlon.random> <20041015183025.GN5607@holomorphy.com> <20041015184009.GG17849@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041015184009.GG17849@dualathlon.random> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1622 Lines: 31 On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 11:30:25AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I just checked in with some Oracle people and the primary concern >> is splitting up RSS into shared and private. Given either shared >> or private the other is calculable. On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > can you define private a bit more? Is private the page_count == 1 like > 2.4? Or is "private" == anonymous? that's the only question. > In Hugh's patch private == "anonymous". With 2.4 private == "page_count > == 1" (which is a subset of anonymous). Private should be "anonymous" as far as I can tell. What's actually going on is that they're trying to estimate per-process user memory footprints so that the amount of client load that should be distributed to a given box may be estimated from that. They at least used to believe (I've since debunked this) that 2.4.x reported this information. Their task (and hence our reporting) is not providing the complete information to determine per-process memory footprints for general workloads, rather it's known up-front that no fork()-based COW sharing is going on in Oracle's case, so in this case, "anonymous" very happily corresponds to "process-private". In fact, the /proc/ changes to report threads only under the directory hierarchy of some distinguished thread assists in this estimation effort. -- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/