Re: [PATCH v2] After swapout/swapin private dirty mappings are reported clean in smaps

[Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>]

On Wednesday 15 September 2010 10:18:11 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 September 2010 05:56:36 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > index 439fc1f..06fc468 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > @@ -368,7 +368,11 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned
> > > > long addr, unsigned long end, mss->shared_clean += PAGE_SIZE;
> > > >  			mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << PSS_SHIFT) / mapcount;
> > > >  		} else {
> > > > -			if (pte_dirty(ptent))
> > > > +			/*
> > > > +			 * File-backed pages, now anonymous are dirty
> > > > +			 * with respect to the file.
> > > > +			 */
> > > > +			if (pte_dirty(ptent) || (vma->vm_file && PageAnon(page)))
> > > >  				mss->private_dirty += PAGE_SIZE;
> > > >  			else
> > > >  				mss->private_clean += PAGE_SIZE;
> > >
> > > This is risky than v1. number of dirties are used a lot of application.
> >
> > This is exactly to help those applications, as currently after swap-out
> > and swap-in, the same pages are accounted as "Private_Clean:" instead of
> > "Private_Dirty:".
> 
> I don't think so.

Actually this behaviour is observed. With a simple memhog, you can see pages 
which are "Private_Dirty:", become "Swap:" and then to "Private_Clean:". And 
that confused GDB.

Thanks
Nikanth

> incorrect infomation bring a lot of confusion rather than
>  its worth.
>