Re: hugetlb pages not accounted for in rss

[Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>]

On 07/28/2015 11:32 AM, Jorn Engel wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:26:47PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> I started looking at the hugetlb self tests.  The test hugetlbfstest
>> expects hugetlb pages to be accounted for in rss.  However, there is
>> no code in the kernel to do this accounting.
>>
>> It looks like there was an effort to add the accounting back in 2013.
>> The test program made it into tree, but the accounting code did not.
>
> My apologies.  Upstream work always gets axed first when I run out of
> time - which happens more often than not.

No worries, I just noticed the inconsistency of the test program and
no supporting code in the kernel.

>> The easiest way to resolve this issue would be to remove the test and
>> perhaps document that hugetlb pages are not accounted for in rss.
>> However, it does seem like a big oversight that hugetlb pages are not
>> accounted for in rss.  From a quick scan of the code it appears THP
>> pages are properly accounted for.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Unsurprisingly I agree that hugepages should count towards rss.  Keeping
> the test in keeps us honest.  Actually fixing the issue would make us
> honest and correct.
>
> Increasingly we have tiny processes (by rss) that actually consume large
> fractions of total memory.  Makes rss somewhat useless as a measure of
> anything.

I'll take a look at what it would take to get the accounting in place.
-- 
Mike Kravetz

>
> Jorn
>
> --
> Consensus is no proof!
> -- John Naisbitt
>

--
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>