Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1338486
| From | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached |
| Date | 2016-02-19 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r40D2-2XK-49@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r3DwK-2Fr-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3FIe-412-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3N34-13P-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:40:45 +0300 Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What are your thoughts on this? > > > > My thoughts are NAK. A misleading stat is not so bad as a > > misleading stat whose meaning we change in some random kernel. > > > > By all means improve Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt on Cached. > > By all means promote Active(file)+Inactive(file)-Buffers as often a > > better measure (though Buffers itself is obscure to me - is it intended > > usually to approximate resident FS metadata?). By all means work on > > /proc/meminfo-v2 (though that may entail dispiritingly long discussions). > > > > We have to assume that Cached has been useful to some people, and that > > they've learnt to subtract Shmem from it, if slow or no swap concerns them. > > > > Added Konstantin to Cc: he's had valuable experience of people learning > > to adapt to the numbers that we put out. > > > > I think everything will ok. Subtraction of shmem isn't widespread practice, > more like secret knowledge. This wasn't documented and people who use > this should be aware that this might stop working at any time. So, ACK. It worries me as well - we're deliberately altering the behaviour of existing userspace code. Not all of those alterations will be welcome! We could add a shiny new field into meminfo and train people to migrate to that. But that would just be a sum of already-available fields. In an ideal world we could solve all of this with documentation and cluebatting (and some apologizing!).
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2016-02-18 21:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> - 2016-02-18 22:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> - 2016-02-19 00:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 07:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 08:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] proc: do not include shmem and driver pages in /proc/meminfo::Cached Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-19 22:20 +0100
csiph-web