From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] proc: export more page flags in /proc/kpageflags
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:22:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090414072231.GA7001@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090414154606.C665.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 02:54:40PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:37:10PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > Export the following page flags in /proc/kpageflags,
> > > > just in case they will be useful to someone:
> > > >
> > > > - PG_swapcache
> > > > - PG_swapbacked
> > > > - PG_mappedtodisk
> > > > - PG_reserved
> > > > - PG_private
> > > > - PG_private_2
> > > > - PG_owner_priv_1
> > > >
> > > > - PG_head
> > > > - PG_tail
> > > > - PG_compound
> > > >
> > > > - PG_unevictable
> > > > - PG_mlocked
> > > >
> > > > - PG_poison
> > >
> > > Sorry, NAK this.
> > > We shouldn't expose internal flags. please choice useful flags only.
> >
> > OK. So are there anyone interested in any of these flags? Thanks!
> >
> > My rational to export most page flags is that hopefully they could
> > help debugging kernel at some random situations..
>
> I think,
>
> > > > - PG_mappedtodisk
> > > > - PG_reserved
> > > > - PG_private
> > > > - PG_private_2
> > > > - PG_owner_priv_1
> > > >
> > > > - PG_head
> > > > - PG_tail
> > > > - PG_unevictable
> > > > - PG_mlocked
How about including PG_unevictable/PG_mlocked?
They shall be meaningful to administrators.
> this 9 flags shouldn't exported.
> I can't imazine administrator use what purpose those flags.
> > > > - PG_swapcache
> > > > - PG_swapbacked
> > > > - PG_poison
> > > > - PG_compound
>
> I can agree this 4 flags.
> However pagemap lack's hugepage considering.
> if PG_compound exporting, we need more work.
You mean to fold PG_head/PG_tail into PG_COMPOUND?
Yes, that's a good simplification for end users.
> >
> > > > Also add the following two pseudo page flags:
> > > >
> > > > - PG_MMAP: whether the page is memory mapped
>
> hm, I can agree it.
>
>
> > > > - PG_NOPAGE: whether the page is present
>
> PM_NOT_PRESENT isn't enough?
That would not be usable if you are going to do a system wide scan.
PG_NOPAGE could help differentiate the 'no page' case from 'no flags'
case.
However PG_NOPAGE is more about the last resort. The system wide scan
can be made much more efficient if we know the exact memory layouts.
Thanks,
Fengguang
> > > >
> > > > This increases the total number of exported page flags to 25.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
> > > > Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
> > > > Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/proc/page.c | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > --- mm.orig/fs/proc/page.c
> > > > +++ mm/fs/proc/page.c
> > > > @@ -68,20 +68,86 @@ static const struct file_operations proc
> > > >
> > > > /* These macros are used to decouple internal flags from exported ones */
> > > >
> > > > -#define KPF_LOCKED 0
> > > > -#define KPF_ERROR 1
> > > > -#define KPF_REFERENCED 2
> > > > -#define KPF_UPTODATE 3
> > > > -#define KPF_DIRTY 4
> > > > -#define KPF_LRU 5
> > > > -#define KPF_ACTIVE 6
> > > > -#define KPF_SLAB 7
> > > > -#define KPF_WRITEBACK 8
> > > > -#define KPF_RECLAIM 9
> > > > -#define KPF_BUDDY 10
> > > > +enum {
> > > > + KPF_LOCKED, /* 0 */
> > > > + KPF_ERROR, /* 1 */
> > > > + KPF_REFERENCED, /* 2 */
> > > > + KPF_UPTODATE, /* 3 */
> > > > + KPF_DIRTY, /* 4 */
> > > > + KPF_LRU, /* 5 */
> > > > + KPF_ACTIVE, /* 6 */
> > > > + KPF_SLAB, /* 7 */
> > > > + KPF_WRITEBACK, /* 8 */
> > > > + KPF_RECLAIM, /* 9 */
> > > > + KPF_BUDDY, /* 10 */
> > > > + KPF_MMAP, /* 11 */
> > > > + KPF_SWAPCACHE, /* 12 */
> > > > + KPF_SWAPBACKED, /* 13 */
> > > > + KPF_MAPPEDTODISK, /* 14 */
> > > > + KPF_RESERVED, /* 15 */
> > > > + KPF_PRIVATE, /* 16 */
> > > > + KPF_PRIVATE2, /* 17 */
> > > > + KPF_OWNER_PRIVATE, /* 18 */
> > > > + KPF_COMPOUND_HEAD, /* 19 */
> > > > + KPF_COMPOUND_TAIL, /* 20 */
> > > > + KPF_UNEVICTABLE, /* 21 */
> > > > + KPF_MLOCKED, /* 22 */
> > > > + KPF_POISON, /* 23 */
> > > > + KPF_NOPAGE, /* 24 */
> > > > + KPF_NUM
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > this is userland export value. then enum is wrong idea.
> > > explicit name-number relationship is better. it prevent unintetional
> > > ABI break.
> >
> > Right, that's the reason I add the /* number */ comments.
> > Anyway, it would be better to use explicit #defines.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] proc: export more page flags in /proc/kpageflags
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:22:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090414072231.GA7001@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090414154606.C665.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 02:54:40PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:37:10PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > Export the following page flags in /proc/kpageflags,
> > > > just in case they will be useful to someone:
> > > >
> > > > - PG_swapcache
> > > > - PG_swapbacked
> > > > - PG_mappedtodisk
> > > > - PG_reserved
> > > > - PG_private
> > > > - PG_private_2
> > > > - PG_owner_priv_1
> > > >
> > > > - PG_head
> > > > - PG_tail
> > > > - PG_compound
> > > >
> > > > - PG_unevictable
> > > > - PG_mlocked
> > > >
> > > > - PG_poison
> > >
> > > Sorry, NAK this.
> > > We shouldn't expose internal flags. please choice useful flags only.
> >
> > OK. So are there anyone interested in any of these flags? Thanks!
> >
> > My rational to export most page flags is that hopefully they could
> > help debugging kernel at some random situations..
>
> I think,
>
> > > > - PG_mappedtodisk
> > > > - PG_reserved
> > > > - PG_private
> > > > - PG_private_2
> > > > - PG_owner_priv_1
> > > >
> > > > - PG_head
> > > > - PG_tail
> > > > - PG_unevictable
> > > > - PG_mlocked
How about including PG_unevictable/PG_mlocked?
They shall be meaningful to administrators.
> this 9 flags shouldn't exported.
> I can't imazine administrator use what purpose those flags.
> > > > - PG_swapcache
> > > > - PG_swapbacked
> > > > - PG_poison
> > > > - PG_compound
>
> I can agree this 4 flags.
> However pagemap lack's hugepage considering.
> if PG_compound exporting, we need more work.
You mean to fold PG_head/PG_tail into PG_COMPOUND?
Yes, that's a good simplification for end users.
> >
> > > > Also add the following two pseudo page flags:
> > > >
> > > > - PG_MMAP: whether the page is memory mapped
>
> hm, I can agree it.
>
>
> > > > - PG_NOPAGE: whether the page is present
>
> PM_NOT_PRESENT isn't enough?
That would not be usable if you are going to do a system wide scan.
PG_NOPAGE could help differentiate the 'no page' case from 'no flags'
case.
However PG_NOPAGE is more about the last resort. The system wide scan
can be made much more efficient if we know the exact memory layouts.
Thanks,
Fengguang
> > > >
> > > > This increases the total number of exported page flags to 25.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
> > > > Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
> > > > Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/proc/page.c | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > --- mm.orig/fs/proc/page.c
> > > > +++ mm/fs/proc/page.c
> > > > @@ -68,20 +68,86 @@ static const struct file_operations proc
> > > >
> > > > /* These macros are used to decouple internal flags from exported ones */
> > > >
> > > > -#define KPF_LOCKED 0
> > > > -#define KPF_ERROR 1
> > > > -#define KPF_REFERENCED 2
> > > > -#define KPF_UPTODATE 3
> > > > -#define KPF_DIRTY 4
> > > > -#define KPF_LRU 5
> > > > -#define KPF_ACTIVE 6
> > > > -#define KPF_SLAB 7
> > > > -#define KPF_WRITEBACK 8
> > > > -#define KPF_RECLAIM 9
> > > > -#define KPF_BUDDY 10
> > > > +enum {
> > > > + KPF_LOCKED, /* 0 */
> > > > + KPF_ERROR, /* 1 */
> > > > + KPF_REFERENCED, /* 2 */
> > > > + KPF_UPTODATE, /* 3 */
> > > > + KPF_DIRTY, /* 4 */
> > > > + KPF_LRU, /* 5 */
> > > > + KPF_ACTIVE, /* 6 */
> > > > + KPF_SLAB, /* 7 */
> > > > + KPF_WRITEBACK, /* 8 */
> > > > + KPF_RECLAIM, /* 9 */
> > > > + KPF_BUDDY, /* 10 */
> > > > + KPF_MMAP, /* 11 */
> > > > + KPF_SWAPCACHE, /* 12 */
> > > > + KPF_SWAPBACKED, /* 13 */
> > > > + KPF_MAPPEDTODISK, /* 14 */
> > > > + KPF_RESERVED, /* 15 */
> > > > + KPF_PRIVATE, /* 16 */
> > > > + KPF_PRIVATE2, /* 17 */
> > > > + KPF_OWNER_PRIVATE, /* 18 */
> > > > + KPF_COMPOUND_HEAD, /* 19 */
> > > > + KPF_COMPOUND_TAIL, /* 20 */
> > > > + KPF_UNEVICTABLE, /* 21 */
> > > > + KPF_MLOCKED, /* 22 */
> > > > + KPF_POISON, /* 23 */
> > > > + KPF_NOPAGE, /* 24 */
> > > > + KPF_NUM
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > this is userland export value. then enum is wrong idea.
> > > explicit name-number relationship is better. it prevent unintetional
> > > ABI break.
> >
> > Right, that's the reason I add the /* number */ comments.
> > Anyway, it would be better to use explicit #defines.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-14 7:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-14 4:22 [RFC][PATCH] proc: export more page flags in /proc/kpageflags Wu Fengguang
2009-04-14 4:22 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-14 4:36 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-14 4:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 4:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 6:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-14 6:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-14 6:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 6:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 7:11 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-14 7:11 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-14 7:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 7:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-15 13:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-15 13:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-15 13:57 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-15 13:57 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-16 2:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-16 2:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-16 3:54 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-16 3:54 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-16 4:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-16 4:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-16 2:26 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-16 2:26 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-16 3:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-16 3:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-16 6:30 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-16 6:30 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-23 2:26 ` [RFC][PATCH] proc: export more page flags in /proc/kpageflags (take 3) Wu Fengguang
2009-04-23 2:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-23 7:48 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-23 7:48 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-23 8:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-23 8:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-23 8:54 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-23 8:54 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-23 11:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-23 11:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-25 1:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-04-14 7:22 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2009-04-14 7:22 ` [RFC][PATCH] proc: export more page flags in /proc/kpageflags Wu Fengguang
2009-04-14 7:42 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-04-14 7:42 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090414072231.GA7001@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.