lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: meminfo Committed_AS underflows
Date
> * KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-04-15 11:04:59]:
>
> > committed = atomic_long_read(&vm_committed_space);
> > + if (committed < 0)
> > + committed = 0;
>
> Isn't this like pushing the problem under the rug?

global_page_state() already has same logic.
IOW almost meminfo filed has this one (except Commited_AS).


> > allowed = ((totalram_pages - hugetlb_total_pages())
> > * sysctl_overcommit_ratio / 100) + total_swap_pages;
> >
> > Index: b/mm/swap.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pagevec_lookup_tag);
> > * We tolerate a little inaccuracy to avoid ping-ponging the counter between
> > * CPUs
> > */
> > -#define ACCT_THRESHOLD max(16, NR_CPUS * 2)
> > +#define ACCT_THRESHOLD max_t(long, 16, num_online_cpus() * 2)
> >
>
> Hmm.. this is a one time expansion, free of CPU hotplug.
>
> Should we use nr_cpu_ids or num_possible_cpus()?

#define num_online_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask)
#define num_possible_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask)

num_possible_cpus() have the same calculation cost.
nr_cpu_ids isn't proper value.
it point to valid cpu-id range, no related number of online nor possible cpus.






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-15 06:13    [W:0.062 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site