From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 879756B0044 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:37:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nBHNbAeA022426 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:37:10 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA48545DE4F for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:37:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B85245DE4E for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:37:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815431DB803C for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:37:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FE31DB803A for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:37:09 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:33:48 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] oom-kill: fix NUMA consraint check with nodemask v4.2 Message-Id: <20091218083348.c75dbb81.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20091110162121.361B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091111142811.eb16f062.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091111152004.3d585cee.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091111153414.3c263842.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091118095824.076c211f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091214171632.0b34d833.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20091215103202.eacfd64e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091215134327.6c46b586.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091215140913.e28f7674.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Daisuke Nishimura , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter List-ID: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:23:39 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > What I can't undestand is the technique to know whether a (unknown) process is > > leaking memory or not by checking vm_size. > > Memory leaks are better identified via total_vm since leaked memory has a > lower probability of staying resident in physical memory. > Because malloc() writes header on newly allcoated memory, (vm_size - rss) cannot be far from a some important program which wakes up once in a day or sleep in the day works in the night. I hope user knows expected memory size of applications, but I know it can't. Sigh... 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