From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-ot1-f72.google.com (mail-ot1-f72.google.com [209.85.210.72])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE226B000A
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Mon,  5 Nov 2018 06:24:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 91so6082167otr.18
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 03:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41])
        by mx.google.com with SMTPS id i12-v6sor10237384oii.165.2018.11.05.03.24.37
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (Google Transport Security);
        Mon, 05 Nov 2018 03:24:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181031081945.207709-1-vovoy@chromium.org> <039b2768-39ff-6196-9615-1f0302ee3e0e@intel.com>
 <CAEHM+4q7V3d+EiHR6+TKoJC=6Ga0eCLWik0oJgDRQCpWps=wMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <80347465-38fd-54d3-facf-bcd6bf38228a@intel.com> <CAEHM+4rsV9G_cahOyyH8njOYyZc5C9b0a6CV4AH_Y7EubXBLAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b114017f-edeb-2055-1313-0d7821d633ae@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <b114017f-edeb-2055-1313-0d7821d633ae@intel.com>
From: Kuo-Hsin Yang <vovoy@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:24:26 +0800
Message-ID: <CAEHM+4oR7tRv5qwKxKjRCQVHF75MnPmb3PdXtU7Ve0hj+G+tjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm, drm/i915: mark pinned shmemfs pages as unevictable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:05 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/18 6:22 AM, Vovo Yang wrote:
> > Chris helped to answer this question:
> > Though it includes a few non-shmemfs objects, see
> > debugfs/dri/0/i915_gem_objects and the "bound objects".
> >
> > Example i915_gem_object output:
> >   591 objects, 95449088 bytes
> >   55 unbound objects, 1880064 bytes
> >   533 bound objects, 93040640 bytes
>
> Do those non-shmemfs objects show up on the unevictable list?  How far
> can the amount of memory on the unevictable list and the amount
> displayed in this "bound objects" value diverge?

Those non-shmemfs objects would not show up on the unevictable list.

On typical use case, The size of gtt bounded objects (in unevictable
list) is very close to the bound size in i915_gem_objects. E.g. on my
laptop: i915_gem_object shows 110075904 bytes bounded objects, and
there are 109760512 bytes gtt bounded objects, the difference is about
0.3%.