From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm, drm/i915: mark pinned shmemfs pages as unevictable Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:05:44 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20181031081945.207709-1-vovoy@chromium.org> <039b2768-39ff-6196-9615-1f0302ee3e0e@intel.com> <80347465-38fd-54d3-facf-bcd6bf38228a@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vovo Yang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Wilson , Michal Hocko , Joonas Lahtinen , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On 11/2/18 6:22 AM, Vovo Yang wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:30 PM Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 11/1/18 5:06 AM, Vovo Yang wrote: >>>> mlock() and ramfs usage are pretty easy to track down. /proc/$pid/smaps >>>> or /proc/meminfo can show us mlock() and good ol' 'df' and friends can >>>> show us ramfs the extent of pinned memory. >>>> >>>> With these, if we see "Unevictable" in meminfo bump up, we at least have >>>> a starting point to find the cause. >>>> >>>> Do we have an equivalent for i915? > Chris helped to answer this question: > Though it includes a few non-shmemfs objects, see > debugfs/dri/0/i915_gem_objects and the "bound objects". > > Example i915_gem_object output: > 591 objects, 95449088 bytes > 55 unbound objects, 1880064 bytes > 533 bound objects, 93040640 bytes Do those non-shmemfs objects show up on the unevictable list? How far can the amount of memory on the unevictable list and the amount displayed in this "bound objects" value diverge?