[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A415D62.20109@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:55:30 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: akataria@...are.com
CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hugepages should be accounted as unevictable pages.
Alok Kataria wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 14:55 -0700, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Alok Kataria wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 14:24 -0700, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Things like page tables and dentry/inode caches vary
>> according to the use case and are allocated as needed.
>> They are in no way "static in nature".
>
> Maybe static was the wrong word to use here.
> What i meant was that you could always calculate the *maximum* amount of
> memory that is going to be used by page table and can also determine the
> % of memory that will be used by slab caches.
My point is that you cannot do that.
We have seen systems with 30% of physical memory in
page tables, as well as systems with a similar amount
of memory in the slab cache.
Yes, these were running legitimate workloads.
--
All rights reversed.
--
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