On Thu, 19 May 2011 17:11:49 -0700

Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:51 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <
> kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:32:40 -0700
> > Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The new API exports numa_maps per-memcg basis. This is a piece of useful
> > > information where it exports per-memcg page distribution across real numa
> > > nodes.
> > >
> > > One of the usecase is evaluating application performance by combining
> > this
> > > information w/ the cpu allocation to the application.
> > >
> > > The output of the memory.numastat tries to follow w/ simiar format of
> > numa_maps
> > > like:
> > >
> > > total=<total pages> N0=<node 0 pages> N1=<node 1 pages> ...
> > > file=<total file pages> N0=<node 0 pages> N1=<node 1 pages> ...
> > > anon=<total anon pages> N0=<node 0 pages> N1=<node 1 pages> ...
> > >
> > > $ cat /dev/cgroup/memory/memory.numa_stat
> > > total=246594 N0=18225 N1=72025 N2=26378 N3=129966
> > > file=221728 N0=15030 N1=60804 N2=23238 N3=122656
> > > anon=21120 N0=2937 N1=7733 N2=3140 N3=7310
> > >
> >
> > Hmm ? this doesn't seem consistent....Isn't this log updated ?
> >
>
> Nope. This is the V3 i posted w/ updated testing result.
>

Did you get this log while applications are running and LRU are changing ?
See N1, 72505 != 60804 + 7733. big error.

Could you clarify why total != file + anon ?
Does the number seems consistent when the system is calm ?

BTW, I wonder why unevictable is not shown...
mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages() counts unevictable into it because of for_each_lru().

There are 2 ways.
 1. show unevictable
 2. use for_each_evictable_lru().

I vote for 1.

Thanks,
-Kame