[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b114017f-edeb-2055-1313-0d7821d633ae@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:05:44 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Vovo Yang <vovoy@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm, drm/i915: mark pinned shmemfs pages as unevictable
On 11/2/18 6:22 AM, Vovo Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:30 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>> On 11/1/18 5:06 AM, Vovo Yang wrote:
>>>> mlock() and ramfs usage are pretty easy to track down. /proc/$pid/smaps
>>>> or /proc/meminfo can show us mlock() and good ol' 'df' and friends can
>>>> show us ramfs the extent of pinned memory.
>>>>
>>>> With these, if we see "Unevictable" in meminfo bump up, we at least have
>>>> a starting point to find the cause.
>>>>
>>>> Do we have an equivalent for i915?
> Chris helped to answer this question:
> Though it includes a few non-shmemfs objects, see
> debugfs/dri/0/i915_gem_objects and the "bound objects".
>
> Example i915_gem_object output:
> 591 objects, 95449088 bytes
> 55 unbound objects, 1880064 bytes
> 533 bound objects, 93040640 bytes
Do those non-shmemfs objects show up on the unevictable list? How far
can the amount of memory on the unevictable list and the amount
displayed in this "bound objects" value diverge?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists