Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753135AbZFWFF5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:05:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751124AbZFWFFu (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:05:50 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:37874 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751101AbZFWFFt (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:05:49 -0400 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: akataria@vmware.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hugepages should be accounted as unevictable pages. Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML , Lee Schermerhorn , Dave Hansen , Mel Gorman , "linux-mm@kvack.org" In-Reply-To: <1245732411.18339.6.camel@alok-dev1> References: <20090623093459.2204.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <1245732411.18339.6.camel@alok-dev1> Message-Id: <20090623135017.220D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:05:47 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2032 Lines: 63 > > > Unevictable: 0 kB > > > Mlocked: 0 kB > > > HugePages_Total: 20 > > > HugePages_Free: 20 > > > HugePages_Rsvd: 0 > > > HugePages_Surp: 0 > > > > > > After the patch: > > > > > > Unevictable: 81920 kB > > > Mlocked: 0 kB > > > HugePages_Total: 20 > > > HugePages_Free: 20 > > > HugePages_Rsvd: 0 > > > HugePages_Surp: 0 > > > > At first, We should clarify the spec of unevictable. > > Currently, Unevictable field mean the number of pages in unevictable-lru > > and hugepage never insert any lru. > > > > I think this patch will change this rule. > > I agree, and that's why I added a comment to the documentation file to > that effect. If you think its not explicit or doesn't explain what its > supposed to we can add something more there. > > IMO, the proc output should give the total number of unevictable pages > in the system and, since hugepages are also in fact unevictable so I > don't see a reason why they shouldn't be accounted accordingly. > What do you think ? ummm... I'm not sure this unevictable definition is good idea or not. currently hugepage isn't only non-account memory, but also various kernel memory doesn't account. one of drawback is that zone_page_state(UNEVICTABLE) lost to mean #-of-unevictable-pages. e.g. following patch is wrong? fs/proc/meminfo.c meminfo_proc_show() ---------------------------- - K(pages[LRU_UNEVICTABLE]), + K(pages[LRU_UNEVICTABLE]) + hstate->nr_huge_pages, Plus, I didn't find any practical benefit in this patch. do you have it? or You only want to natural definition? I don't have any strong oppose reason, but I also don't have any strong agree reason. Lee, What do you think? -- 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/