[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181214182904.GE10600@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 10:29:04 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guroan@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] mm: show number of vmalloc pages in /proc/meminfo
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:07:20AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Vmalloc() is getting more and more used these days (kernel stacks,
> bpf and percpu allocator are new top users), and the total %
> of memory consumed by vmalloc() can be pretty significant
> and changes dynamically.
>
> /proc/meminfo is the best place to display this information:
> its top goal is to show top consumers of the memory.
>
> Since the VmallocUsed field in /proc/meminfo is not in use
> for quite a long time (it has been defined to 0 by the
> commit a5ad88ce8c7f ("mm: get rid of 'vmalloc_info' from
> /proc/meminfo")), let's reuse it for showing the actual
> physical memory consumption of vmalloc().
Do you see significant contention on nr_vmalloc_pages? Also, if it's
just an atomic_long_t, is it worth having an accessor for it? And if
it is worth having an accessor for it, then it can be static.
Also, I seem to be missing 3/4.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists