[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090416044306.GA21153@localhost>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:43:06 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] proc: export more page flags in /proc/kpageflags
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:54:43AM +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:41:33AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:57:49PM +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > That's pretty good separations. I guess it would be convenient to make the
> > > > extra kernel flags available under CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > BTW an alternative would be just someone implementing a suitable
> > > command/macro in crash(1) and tell the kernel hackers to run that on
> > > /proc/kcore. That would have the advantage to not require code.
> >
> > Hmm, that would be horrible to code/maintain. i
>
> Actually the bits are enums and crash is able to read C type
> information.
Great! That dismissed my main concern with crash.
> > One major purpose of
> > /proc/kpageflags is to export the unstable kernel page flag bits as
> > stable ones to user space.
>
> That's the first case ("administrator"), but not the second one
> ("kernel hacker")
>
> BTW not saying that crash is the best solution for this, but
> it's certainly an serious alternative for the kernel hacker
> case.
OK.
> > Note that the exact internal flag bits can
> > not only change slowly with kernel versions, but more likely with
> > different kconfig combinations.
>
> Really? The numbers should be the same, at least for a given
> architecture with 32bit/64bit.
For example, the presence of CONFIG_PAGEFLAGS_EXTENDED will shift
all the following flag bits by 1.
#ifdef CONFIG_PAGEFLAGS_EXTENDED
PG_head, /* A head page */
PG_tail, /* A tail page */
#else
PG_compound, /* A compound page */
#endif
PG_swapcache, /* Swap page: swp_entry_t in private */
PG_mappedtodisk, /* Has blocks allocated on-disk */
PG_reclaim, /* To be reclaimed asap */
PG_buddy, /* Page is free, on buddy lists */
PG_swapbacked, /* Page is backed by RAM/swap */
#ifdef CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU
PG_unevictable, /* Page is "unevictable" */
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MLOCKED_PAGE_BIT
PG_mlocked, /* Page is vma mlocked */
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_IA64_UNCACHED_ALLOCATOR
PG_uncached, /* Page has been mapped as uncached */
#endif
__NR_PAGEFLAGS,
> > Followed are their detailed locations. Did we found a bug? ;-)
>
> I think all pages > 0 in a larger page are tails. But I don't
> claim to understand all the finer details of compound pages.
Right. Tail pages will outnumber head pages. But I found that the
tail page _ranges_ greatly outnumber head pages. There should be
exactly one tail page range for one head page.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists