From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (mail-wg0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB9F6B0032 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n12so11867114wgh.8 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:36:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from kirsi1.inet.fi (mta-out1.inet.fi. [62.71.2.195]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id fq5si6348494wib.55.2015.01.14.15.36.35 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:36:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 01:36:30 +0200 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] task_mmu: Add user-space support for resetting mm->hiwater_rss (peak RSS) Message-ID: <20150114233630.GA14615@node.dhcp.inet.fi> References: <20150107172452.GA7922@node.dhcp.inet.fi> <20150114152225.GB31484@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150114152225.GB31484@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Petr Cermak Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Bjorn Helgaas , Primiano Tucci , Hugh Dickins On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:22:25PM +0000, Petr Cermak wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 07:24:52PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > And how it's not an ABI break? > I don't think this is an ABI break because the current behaviour is not > changed unless you write "5" to /proc/pid/clear_refs. If you do, you are > explicitly requesting the new functionality. I'm not sure if it should be considered ABI break or not. Just asking. I would like to hear opinion from other people. > > We have never-lowering VmHWM for 9+ years. How can you know that nobody > > expects this behaviour? > This is why we sent an RFC [1] several weeks ago. We expect this to be > used mainly by performance-related tools (e.g. profilers) and from the > comments in the code [2] VmHWM seems to be a best-effort counter. If this > is strictly a no-go, I can only think of the following two alternatives: > > 1. Add an extra resettable field to /proc/pid/status (e.g. > resettable_hiwater_rss). While this doesn't violate the current > definition of VmHWM, it adds an extra line to /proc/pid/status, > which I think is a much bigger issue. I don't think extra line is bigger issue. Sane applications would look for a key, not line number. We do add lines there. I've posted patch which adds one more just today ;) > 2. Introduce a new proc fs file to task_mmu (e.g. > /proc/pid/profiler_stats), but this feels like overengineering. > > > And why do you reset hiwater_rss, but not hiwater_vm? > This is a good point. Should we reset both using the same flag, or > introduce a new one ("6")? > > [1] lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1412.1/01877.html > [2] task_mmu.c:32: "... such snapshots can always be inconsistent." -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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: email@kvack.org