Re: [PATCH 2.6.14-rc2] fix incorrect mm->hiwater_vm and mm->hiwater_rss

From: Jay Lan
Date: Thu Oct 06 2005 - 21:32:03 EST


Jay Lan wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:



See comment in fs/proc/task_mmu.c for the principle. Could maintain
hiwater_vm straightforwardly, but I think it's easier to remember if
we handle them both in the same way.

I did look into doing the total_vm increment and calling vm_stat_account
in insert_vm_struct, but concluded it solved no particular problem, and
raised some questions (where architectures, notably ia64, have special
vmas which they may have good reason to leave out of total_vm).

I haven't cross-checked the mm_struct cacheline rearrangement yet,
it looks plausible, but could easily turn out to straddle boundaries.

Christoph, Frank, Jay: does this patch look like it fits your needs?


I am building a kernel with your patch and am going to run some test
to compare the statistics.

My testing showed the same number on hiwater_vm, but hiwater_rss from
Hugh's version was consistently ~1.5% lower. Where was the loss?

The fact that i have consistent hiwater_vm and hiwater_rss
in a few hundreds of processes suggests that that test may not
be a good test for comparing hiwater_vm and hiwater_rss.

I guess it allocates same amount of memory up front in every sub-tests
processes and never get over it. However, it also showed the way Hugh
did hiwater_rss in new code missed something.

Tomorrow i will be very busy at my work. I will be back on this
next Monday.

Thanks,
- jay


Thanks,
- jay


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/