From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E0B6B005A for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:24:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.247]) by e23smtp08.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7LILBW3007856 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:21:11 +1000 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.96]) by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n7LINFTx1155310 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:23:17 +1000 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n7LIO4h4031465 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:24:05 +1000 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:54:39 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages? Message-ID: <20090821182439.GN29572@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <4A7AAE07.1010202@redhat.com> <20090806102057.GQ23385@random.random> <20090806105932.GA1569@localhost> <4A7AC201.4010202@redhat.com> <20090806130631.GB6162@localhost> <4A7AD79E.4020604@redhat.com> <20090816032822.GB6888@localhost> <4A878377.70502@redhat.com> <20090816045522.GA13740@localhost> <9EECC02A4CC333418C00A85D21E89326B6611F25@azsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9EECC02A4CC333418C00A85D21E89326B6611F25@azsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Dike, Jeffrey G" Cc: "Wu, Fengguang" , Rik van Riel , Avi Kivity , Andrea Arcangeli , "Yu, Wilfred" , "Kleen, Andi" , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman , LKML , linux-mm List-ID: * Dike, Jeffrey G [2009-08-17 12:47:29]: > > Jeff, can you have a look at these stats? Thanks! > > Yeah, I just did after adding some tracing which dumped out the same data. It looks pretty much the same. Inactive anon and active anon are pretty similar. Inactive file and active file are smaller and fluctuate more, but doesn't look horribly unbalanced. > > Below are the stats from memory.stat - inactive_anon, active_anon, inactive_file, active_file, plus some commentary on what's happening. > Interesting.. there seems to be sufficient number of inactive memory, specifically inactive_file. My biggest suspicion now is passing of reference info from shadow page tables to host (although to be honest, I've never looked at that code). What do the stats for / from within kvm look like? -- Balbir -- 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