From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5DE676B004F for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n5N685G8005548 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:08:05 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA0C45DE63 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:08:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8845545DE64 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:08:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7641DB803E for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:08:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F365CE08002 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:08:03 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:06:30 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hugepages should be accounted as unevictable pages. Message-Id: <20090623150630.31c0dff5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <1245736441.18339.21.camel@alok-dev1> References: <20090623093459.2204.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <1245732411.18339.6.camel@alok-dev1> <20090623135017.220D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090623141147.8f2cef18.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1245736441.18339.21.camel@alok-dev1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: akataria@vmware.com Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , LKML , Lee Schermerhorn , Dave Hansen , Mel Gorman , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:54:01 -0700 Alok Kataria wrote: > > > > > > I don't have any strong oppose reason, but I also don't have any strong > > > agree reason. > > > > > I think "don't include Hugepage" is sane. Hugepage is something _special_, now. > > > Kamezawa-san, > > I agree that hugepages are special in the sense that they are > implemented specially and don't actually reside on the LRU like any > other locked memory. But, both of these memory types (mlocked and > hugepages) are actually unevictable and can't be reclaimed back, so i > don't see a reason why should accounting not reflect that. > I bet we should rename "Unevictable" to "Mlocked" or "Pinned" rather than take nr_hugepages into account. I think this "Unevictable" in meminfo means - pages which are evictable in their nature (because in LRU) but a user pinned it - How about rename "Unevictable" to "Pinned" or "Locked" ? (Mlocked + locked shmem's + ramfs?) We have other "unevictable" pages other than Hugepage anyway. - page table - some slab - kernel's page - anon pages in swapless system etc... BTW, I use following calculation for quick check if I want all "Unevicatable" pages. Unevictable = Total - (Active+Inactive) + (50-70%? of slab) This # of is not-reclaimable memory. Thanks, -Kame > Thanks, > Alok > > > Thanks, > > -Kame > > > > -- 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: email@kvack.org