Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached

[Hugh Dickins]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:40:45 +0300 Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > >> What are your thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > My thoughts are NAK.  A misleading stat is not so bad as a
> > > misleading stat whose meaning we change in some random kernel.
> > >
> > > By all means improve Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt on Cached.
> > > By all means promote Active(file)+Inactive(file)-Buffers as often a
> > > better measure (though Buffers itself is obscure to me - is it intended
> > > usually to approximate resident FS metadata?).  By all means work on
> > > /proc/meminfo-v2 (though that may entail dispiritingly long discussions).
> > >
> > > We have to assume that Cached has been useful to some people, and that
> > > they've learnt to subtract Shmem from it, if slow or no swap concerns them.
> > >
> > > Added Konstantin to Cc: he's had valuable experience of people learning
> > > to adapt to the numbers that we put out.
> > >
> > 
> > I think everything will ok. Subtraction of shmem isn't widespread practice,
> > more like secret knowledge. This wasn't documented and people who use
> > this should be aware that this might stop working at any time. So, ACK.
> 
> It worries me as well - we're deliberately altering the behaviour of
> existing userspace code.  Not all of those alterations will be welcome!
> 
> We could add a shiny new field into meminfo and train people to migrate
> to that.  But that would just be a sum of already-available fields.  In
> an ideal world we could solve all of this with documentation and
> cluebatting (and some apologizing!).

Ah, I missed this, and just sent a redundant addition to the thread;
followed by this doubly redundant addition.

Hugh