On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 07:02:42PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 04/25/2018 06:48 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 05:47:26PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 04/25/2018 02:52 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 09:19:29AM +0530, Vijayanand Jitta w
On 04/25/2018 06:48 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 05:47:26PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 04/25/2018 02:52 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 09:19:29AM +0530, Vijayanand Jitta wrote:
Idk, I don't like the idea of adding a counter outside of
On 04/25/2018 05:55 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 05:43:39PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote:
>> One such case I have encountered is that of the ION page pool. The page pool
>> registers a shrinker. When not in any memory pressure page pool can go high
>> and thus cause an mmap to
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 05:47:26PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 04/25/2018 02:52 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 09:19:29AM +0530, Vijayanand Jitta wrote:
> >> Idk, I don't like the idea of adding a counter outside of the vm
> >> counters
> >> infrastructure
On 04/25/2018 02:52 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 09:19:29AM +0530, Vijayanand Jitta wrote:
>> Idk, I don't like the idea of adding a counter outside of the vm counters
>> infrastructure, and I definitely wouldn't touch the exposed
>> nr_slab_reclaimable and nr_sla
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 05:43:39PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote:
> One such case I have encountered is that of the ION page pool. The page pool
> registers a shrinker. When not in any memory pressure page pool can go high
> and thus cause an mmap to fail when OVERCOMMIT_GUESS is set. I can send
> a p
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 09:19:29AM +0530, Vijayanand Jitta wrote:
> Idk, I don't like the idea of adding a counter outside of the vm counters
> infrastructure, and I definitely wouldn't touch the exposed
> nr_slab_reclaimable and nr_slab_unreclaimable fields.
> >>>
> >>> We would be
On 4/13/2018 5:43 PM, vinayak menon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 08:52:52AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2018 03:56 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:16:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 08:52:52AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 04/11/2018 03:56 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:16:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >> [+CC linux-api]
>> >>
>> >> On 03/05/2018 02:37 PM,
On Thu 12-04-18 15:57:03, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 08:52:52AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> > We would be just making the reported values more precise wrt reality.
>
> It depends on if we believe that only slab memory can be reclaimable
> or not. If yes, this is true
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 08:52:52AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 04/11/2018 03:56 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:16:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> [+CC linux-api]
> >>
> >> On 03/05/2018 02:37 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>> This patch introduces a concept of
On Thu 12-04-18 15:38:33, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 12-04-18 08:52:52, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 04/11/2018 03:56 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:16:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > [...]
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:52:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 12-04-18 08:52:52, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 04/11/2018 03:56 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:16:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [...]
> > >> With that in mind, can we at least for now put the
On Thu 12-04-18 08:52:52, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 04/11/2018 03:56 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:16:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> >> With that in mind, can we at least for now put the (manually maintained)
> >> byte counter in a variable that's not direct
On 04/11/2018 03:56 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:16:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> [+CC linux-api]
>>
>> On 03/05/2018 02:37 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>> This patch introduces a concept of indirectly reclaimable memory
>>> and adds the corresponding memory counter
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:16:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+CC linux-api]
>
> On 03/05/2018 02:37 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > This patch introduces a concept of indirectly reclaimable memory
> > and adds the corresponding memory counter and /proc/vmstat item.
> >
> > Indirectly reclaim
[+CC linux-api]
On 03/05/2018 02:37 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> This patch introduces a concept of indirectly reclaimable memory
> and adds the corresponding memory counter and /proc/vmstat item.
>
> Indirectly reclaimable memory is any sort of memory, used by
> the kernel (except of reclaimable
This patch introduces a concept of indirectly reclaimable memory
and adds the corresponding memory counter and /proc/vmstat item.
Indirectly reclaimable memory is any sort of memory, used by
the kernel (except of reclaimable slabs), which is actually
reclaimable, i.e. will be released under memory
18 matches
Mail list logo
