[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56ABD7EB.7000404@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:21:47 -0800
From: Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, "Khalid Mughal (khalidm)" <khalidm@...co.com>,
"xe-kernel@...ernal.cisco.com" <xe-kernel@...ernal.cisco.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: computing drop-able caches
On 01/28/2016 05:55 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 05:29:41PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
>> On 01/28/2016 05:03 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>> [regarding MemAvaiable]
>>
>> This new metric purportedly helps usrespace assess available memory. But,
>> its again based on heuristic, it takes 1/2 of page cache as reclaimable..
> No, it takes the smaller value of cache/2 and the low watermark, which
> is a fraction of memory. Actually, that does look a little weird. Rik?
>
> We don't age cache without memory pressure, you don't know how much is
> used until you start taking some away. Heuristics is all we can offer.
With a simple busybox root system I get this,
MemTotal: 16273996 kB
MemFree: 16137920 kB
MemAvailable: 16046132 kB
shouldn't MemAvailable be at least the same as MemFree ? I changed the
code somewhat so it subtracted the wmark_low only, or the pagecache/2
only, both are still under MemFree. This system has very little
drop-able caches.
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists