Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:06:30 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Hugepages should be accounted as unevictable pages. |
| |
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:54:01 -0700 Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I don't have any strong oppose reason, but I also don't have any strong > > > agree reason. > > > > > I think "don't include Hugepage" is sane. Hugepage is something _special_, now. > > > Kamezawa-san, > > I agree that hugepages are special in the sense that they are > implemented specially and don't actually reside on the LRU like any > other locked memory. But, both of these memory types (mlocked and > hugepages) are actually unevictable and can't be reclaimed back, so i > don't see a reason why should accounting not reflect that. >
I bet we should rename "Unevictable" to "Mlocked" or "Pinned" rather than take nr_hugepages into account. I think this "Unevictable" in meminfo means - pages which are evictable in their nature (because in LRU) but a user pinned it -
How about rename "Unevictable" to "Pinned" or "Locked" ? (Mlocked + locked shmem's + ramfs?)
We have other "unevictable" pages other than Hugepage anyway. - page table - some slab - kernel's page - anon pages in swapless system etc...
BTW, I use following calculation for quick check if I want all "Unevicatable" pages.
Unevictable = Total - (Active+Inactive) + (50-70%? of slab)
This # of is not-reclaimable memory.
Thanks, -Kame
> Thanks, > Alok > > > Thanks, > > -Kame > > > >
| |