From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:05:09 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: removing mm->rss and mm->anon_rss from kernel? Message-ID: <20041106200509.GG2890@holomorphy.com> References: <4189EC67.40601@yahoo.com.au> <418AD329.3000609@yahoo.com.au> <418AE0F0.5050908@yahoo.com.au> <418C55A7.9030100@yahoo.com.au> <204290000.1099754257@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Nick Piggin , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:19:55AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Yes but I think this is preferable because of the generally faster > operations of the vm without having to continually update statistics. And > these statistics seem to be quite difficult to properly generate (why else > introduce anon_rss). Without the counters other optimizations are easier > to do. > Doing a ps is not a frequent event. Of course this may cause > significant load if one does regularly access /proc entities then. Are > there any threads from the past with some numbers of what the impact was > when we calculated rss via proc? It was catastrophic. Failure of monitoring tools to make forward progress, long-lived delays of "victim" processes whose locks were held by /proc/ observers, and the like. On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:19:55AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > That has its own complications and would require lots of memory with > systems that already have up to 10k cpus. Split counters are a solved problem, even for the 10K cpus case. -- wli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org