From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0DBC433B4 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:35:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D09C61424 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:35:10 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2D09C61424 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7D9C96B006C; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 02:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7AE946B006E; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 02:35:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 662296B0070; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 02:35:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0021.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.21]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E076B006C for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 02:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CD682499A8 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:35:08 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78055411938.29.9A5846C Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2A980192E8 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:34:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1618986907; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fDQ7emmRJXtP1ofpDwCVif6iy+cZGLJnS5pOEzgyEIE=; b=ZvK/RC4pu63ZvJEwKjIt9sLxwHggqQoBSXC7DNEDktW4LOr4gBruarnt62dgpxaLS3FtIr Ww7mm0wltC2K5nhoPQHen8N2JRXLykdPUg4zRpffZTc/o2I3z+Zh3gUP94ErcjFt1O/wQF R6GpcWLn/wzNomrHhpmgwvY5+i8HMAc= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CD2B0D7; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:35:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:35:06 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Mike Rapoport , Jonathan Corbet , Andrew Morton , Eric Dumazet , Mike Rapoport , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: proc.rst: meminfo: briefly describe gaps in memory accounting Message-ID: References: <20210420121354.1160437-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20210420132430.GB3596236@casper.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1E2A980192E8 X-Stat-Signature: henxu3d58pd5ybm4xyzjsrwjhndru5ek Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf27; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1618986891-305569 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue 20-04-21 20:58:56, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:57:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 20-04-21 14:24:30, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:13:54PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > Add a paragraph that explains that it may happen that the counters in > > > > /proc/meminfo do not add up to the overall memory usage. > > > > > > ... that is, the sum may be lower because memory is allocated for other > > > purposes that is not reported here, right? > > > > yes. Many direct page allocator users are not accounted in any of the > > existing counters. > > Does virtio_balloon dereserve special mention? Yes > From inside VM memory borrowing looks like one giant memory leak resulting > in support tickets (not that people who file them read internal kernel > documentation...) Even if people do not read that documentation it is really good to have a reference you can send when you are dealing with bug reports. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs