From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com (mail-pa0-f49.google.com [209.85.220.49]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F038F6B0253 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by padck2 with SMTP id ck2so75604131pad.0 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com. [156.151.31.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pj10si3790105pac.162.2015.07.28.14.15.44 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: hugetlb pages not accounted for in rss References: <55B6BE37.3010804@oracle.com> <20150728183248.GB1406@Sligo.logfs.org> From: Mike Kravetz Message-ID: <55B7F0F8.8080909@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:15:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150728183248.GB1406@Sligo.logfs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=b6rn_Engel?= Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , linux-kernel On 07/28/2015 11:32 AM, Jorn Engel wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:26:47PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote: >> I started looking at the hugetlb self tests. The test hugetlbfstest >> expects hugetlb pages to be accounted for in rss. However, there is >> no code in the kernel to do this accounting. >> >> It looks like there was an effort to add the accounting back in 2013. >> The test program made it into tree, but the accounting code did not. > > My apologies. Upstream work always gets axed first when I run out of > time - which happens more often than not. No worries, I just noticed the inconsistency of the test program and no supporting code in the kernel. >> The easiest way to resolve this issue would be to remove the test and >> perhaps document that hugetlb pages are not accounted for in rss. >> However, it does seem like a big oversight that hugetlb pages are not >> accounted for in rss. From a quick scan of the code it appears THP >> pages are properly accounted for. >> >> Thoughts? > > Unsurprisingly I agree that hugepages should count towards rss. Keeping > the test in keeps us honest. Actually fixing the issue would make us > honest and correct. > > Increasingly we have tiny processes (by rss) that actually consume large > fractions of total memory. Makes rss somewhat useless as a measure of > anything. I'll take a look at what it would take to get the accounting in place. -- Mike Kravetz > > Jorn > > -- > Consensus is no proof! > -- John Naisbitt > -- 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