Re: [PATCH 2.4 Rmap] Add Inactive to /proc/meminfo was: Mem: and Swap: lines in /proc/meminfo

Re: [PATCH 2.4 Rmap] Add Inactive to /proc/meminfo was: Mem: and Swap: lines in /proc/meminfo

[Ronny V. Vindenes]

Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 03:05:11PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 05:42:46PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Inact_dirty:     21516 kB
> > > > Inact_laundry:   65612 kB
> > > > Inact_clean:     19812 kB
> > > > 
> > > > These three are seperate lists in rmap, and are equal to "Inactive:" in
> > > > the -aa vm.
> > > 
> > > I should add an Inactive: list to -rmap that sums up all
> > > 3, to make it a bit easier on programs parsing /proc.
> > > 
> > 
> > ISTR, asking for this a while ago ;)
> > 
> > Yes, please do add that Inactive: line to rmap. :)
> 
> How's this patch?
> 
> --- proc_misc.c.orig	2003-12-16 17:03:45.000000000 -0800
> +++ proc_misc.c	2003-12-16 17:04:28.000000000 -0800
> @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@
>  		"Active:       %8u kB\n"
>  		"ActiveAnon:   %8u kB\n"
>  		"ActiveCache:  %8u kB\n"
> +		"Inactive:     %8u kB\n"
>  		"Inact_dirty:  %8u kB\n"
>  		"Inact_laundry:%8u kB\n"
>  		"Inact_clean:  %8u kB\n"
> @@ -208,6 +209,8 @@
>  		K(nr_active_anon_pages()) + K(nr_active_cache_pages()),
>  		K(nr_active_anon_pages()),
>  		K(nr_active_cache_pages()),
> +		K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages()) + K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages())
                              ^^^^^  
Shouldn't that be nr_inactive_clean_pages() ? now it's 2*dirty + laundry

> +			+ K(nr_inactive_laundry_pages()),
>  		K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages()),
>  		K(nr_inactive_laundry_pages()),
>  		K(nr_inactive_clean_pages()),
> -

-- 
Ronny V. Vindenes <s864@ii.uib.no>

Re: [PATCH 2.4 Rmap] Add Inactive to /proc/meminfo was: Mem: and Swap: lines in /proc/meminfo

[Mike Fedyk]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:40:12PM +0100, Ronny V. Vindenes wrote:
> Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> writes:
> > +		K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages()) + K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages())
>                               ^^^^^  
> Shouldn't that be nr_inactive_clean_pages() ? now it's 2*dirty + laundry
> 

Yes, good catch.  Thanks

> > +			+ K(nr_inactive_laundry_pages()),

How's this?

--- proc_misc.c.orig	2003-12-16 17:03:45.000000000 -0800
+++ proc_misc.c	2003-12-16 17:04:28.000000000 -0800
@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@
 		"Active:       %8u kB\n"
 		"ActiveAnon:   %8u kB\n"
 		"ActiveCache:  %8u kB\n"
+		"Inactive:     %8u kB\n"
 		"Inact_dirty:  %8u kB\n"
 		"Inact_laundry:%8u kB\n"
 		"Inact_clean:  %8u kB\n"
@@ -208,6 +209,8 @@
 		K(nr_active_anon_pages()) + K(nr_active_cache_pages()),
 		K(nr_active_anon_pages()),
 		K(nr_active_cache_pages()),
+		K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages()) + K(nr_inactive_laundry_pages())
+			+ K(nr_inactive_clean_pages()),
 		K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages()),
 		K(nr_inactive_laundry_pages()),
 		K(nr_inactive_clean_pages()),

Re: [PATCH 2.4 Rmap] Add Inactive to /proc/meminfo was: Mem: and Swap: lines in /proc/meminfo

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> How's this?

Even better than the last one ;)

Good catch, Ronny!

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

Re: Mem: and Swap: lines in /proc/meminfo

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> Inact_dirty:     21516 kB
> Inact_laundry:   65612 kB
> Inact_clean:     19812 kB
> 
> These three are seperate lists in rmap, and are equal to "Inactive:" in
> the -aa vm.

I should add an Inactive: list to -rmap that sums up all
3, to make it a bit easier on programs parsing /proc.

Note that the inactive clean pages count (more or less)
as free pages, too.

> Inact_target:   150080 kB
> 
> This doesn't account any memory, but is only what the VM is trying to size
> the sum of the three lists above.
> 
> Do I have that right?

Yes, you're completely right.

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

Re: Mem: and Swap: lines in /proc/meminfo

[Mike Fedyk]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 05:42:46PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> 
> > Inact_dirty:     21516 kB
> > Inact_laundry:   65612 kB
> > Inact_clean:     19812 kB
> > 
> > These three are seperate lists in rmap, and are equal to "Inactive:" in
> > the -aa vm.
> 
> I should add an Inactive: list to -rmap that sums up all
> 3, to make it a bit easier on programs parsing /proc.
> 

ISTR, asking for this a while ago ;)

Yes, please do add that Inactive: line to rmap. :)

> Note that the inactive clean pages count (more or less)
> as free pages, too.
> 

But I should count it as "Inactive" right?

So, if it's clean, then the page has already been zeroed out, and is ready
to be used but just needs some flags updated?  Or they contain possibly
useful data, and just are not dirty?  So a page that is inactive, but not
dirty will go directly in that list?

What can happen to Inact_clean pages besides being freed, and used on the
free memory list?

> > Inact_target:   150080 kB
> > 
> > This doesn't account any memory, but is only what the VM is trying to size
> > the sum of the three lists above.
> > 
> > Do I have that right?
> 
> Yes, you're completely right.

Great. :)

[PATCH 2.4 Rmap] Add Inactive to /proc/meminfo was: Mem: and Swap: lines in /proc/meminfo

[Mike Fedyk]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 03:05:11PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 05:42:46PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > 
> > > Inact_dirty:     21516 kB
> > > Inact_laundry:   65612 kB
> > > Inact_clean:     19812 kB
> > > 
> > > These three are seperate lists in rmap, and are equal to "Inactive:" in
> > > the -aa vm.
> > 
> > I should add an Inactive: list to -rmap that sums up all
> > 3, to make it a bit easier on programs parsing /proc.
> > 
> 
> ISTR, asking for this a while ago ;)
> 
> Yes, please do add that Inactive: line to rmap. :)

How's this patch?

--- proc_misc.c.orig	2003-12-16 17:03:45.000000000 -0800
+++ proc_misc.c	2003-12-16 17:04:28.000000000 -0800
@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@
 		"Active:       %8u kB\n"
 		"ActiveAnon:   %8u kB\n"
 		"ActiveCache:  %8u kB\n"
+		"Inactive:     %8u kB\n"
 		"Inact_dirty:  %8u kB\n"
 		"Inact_laundry:%8u kB\n"
 		"Inact_clean:  %8u kB\n"
@@ -208,6 +209,8 @@
 		K(nr_active_anon_pages()) + K(nr_active_cache_pages()),
 		K(nr_active_anon_pages()),
 		K(nr_active_cache_pages()),
+		K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages()) + K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages())
+			+ K(nr_inactive_laundry_pages()),
 		K(nr_inactive_dirty_pages()),
 		K(nr_inactive_laundry_pages()),
 		K(nr_inactive_clean_pages()),

Re: [PATCH 2.4 Rmap] Add Inactive to /proc/meminfo was: Mem: and Swap: lines in /proc/meminfo

[Rik van Riel]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> How's this patch?

Looks great.  Thanks.

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan