* [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps [not found] <20070814013350.GA9182@mail.ustc.edu.cn> @ 2007-08-14 1:33 ` Fengguang Wu 2007-08-14 5:26 ` Balbir Singh 2007-08-14 6:19 ` Matt Mackall 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Fengguang Wu @ 2007-08-14 1:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Matt Mackall, John Berthels, linux-kernel The "proportional set size" (PSS) of a process is the count of pages it has in memory, where each page is divided by the number of processes sharing it. So if a process has 1000 pages all to itself, and 1000 shared with one other process, its PSS will be 1500. - lwn.net: "ELC: How much memory are applications really using?" The PSS proposed by Matt Mackall is a very nice metic for measuring an process's memory footprint. So collect and export it via /proc/<pid>/smaps. Matt Mackall's pagemap/kpagemap and John Berthels's exmap can also do the job, providing pretty much details. But for PSS, let's do it in a simple way. Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> Cc: John Berthels <jjberthels@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> --- fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 13 ++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2.orig/fs/proc/task_mmu.c +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2/fs/proc/task_mmu.c @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ const struct file_operations proc_maps_o struct mem_size_stats { unsigned long resident; + u64 pss; /* proportional set size: my share of rss */ unsigned long shared_clean; unsigned long shared_dirty; unsigned long private_clean; @@ -341,6 +342,7 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u pte_t *pte, ptent; spinlock_t *ptl; struct page *page; + int mapcount; pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl); for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) { @@ -357,16 +359,19 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u /* Accumulate the size in pages that have been accessed. */ if (pte_young(ptent) || PageReferenced(page)) mss->referenced += PAGE_SIZE; - if (page_mapcount(page) >= 2) { + mapcount = page_mapcount(page); + if (mapcount >= 2) { if (pte_dirty(ptent)) mss->shared_dirty += PAGE_SIZE; else mss->shared_clean += PAGE_SIZE; + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << 12) / mapcount; } else { if (pte_dirty(ptent)) mss->private_dirty += PAGE_SIZE; else mss->private_clean += PAGE_SIZE; + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << 12); } } pte_unmap_unlock(pte - 1, ptl); @@ -395,18 +400,20 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, seq_printf(m, "Size: %8lu kB\n" "Rss: %8lu kB\n" + "Pss: %8lu kB\n" "Shared_Clean: %8lu kB\n" "Shared_Dirty: %8lu kB\n" "Private_Clean: %8lu kB\n" "Private_Dirty: %8lu kB\n" "Referenced: %8lu kB\n", (vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start) >> 10, - sarg.mss.resident >> 10, + sarg.mss.resident >> 10, + (unsigned long)(mss->pss >> 22), sarg.mss.shared_clean >> 10, sarg.mss.shared_dirty >> 10, sarg.mss.private_clean >> 10, sarg.mss.private_dirty >> 10, - sarg.mss.referenced >> 10); + sarg.mss.referenced >> 10); return ret; } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps 2007-08-14 1:33 ` [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps Fengguang Wu @ 2007-08-14 5:26 ` Balbir Singh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2007-08-14 5:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton, Matt Mackall, John Berthels, linux-kernel Fengguang Wu wrote: > The "proportional set size" (PSS) of a process is the count of pages it has in > memory, where each page is divided by the number of processes sharing it. So if > a process has 1000 pages all to itself, and 1000 shared with one other process, > its PSS will be 1500. > - lwn.net: "ELC: How much memory are applications really using?" > > The PSS proposed by Matt Mackall is a very nice metic for measuring an process's > memory footprint. So collect and export it via /proc/<pid>/smaps. > > Matt Mackall's pagemap/kpagemap and John Berthels's exmap can also do the job, > providing pretty much details. But for PSS, let's do it in a simple way. > > Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> > Cc: John Berthels <jjberthels@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> I like the idea of moving towards PSS. I had sent some patches back in December last year http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=116738715329816&w=4 > --- > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2.orig/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ const struct file_operations proc_maps_o > struct mem_size_stats > { > unsigned long resident; > + u64 pss; /* proportional set size: my share of rss */ > unsigned long shared_clean; > unsigned long shared_dirty; > unsigned long private_clean; > @@ -341,6 +342,7 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u > pte_t *pte, ptent; > spinlock_t *ptl; > struct page *page; > + int mapcount; > > pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl); > for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) { > @@ -357,16 +359,19 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u > /* Accumulate the size in pages that have been accessed. */ > if (pte_young(ptent) || PageReferenced(page)) > mss->referenced += PAGE_SIZE; > - if (page_mapcount(page) >= 2) { > + mapcount = page_mapcount(page); > + if (mapcount >= 2) { This accounting is of-course racy. Mapcount can change any moment. > if (pte_dirty(ptent)) > mss->shared_dirty += PAGE_SIZE; > else > mss->shared_clean += PAGE_SIZE; > + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << 12) / mapcount; > } else { > if (pte_dirty(ptent)) > mss->private_dirty += PAGE_SIZE; > else > mss->private_clean += PAGE_SIZE; > + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << 12); > } > } > pte_unmap_unlock(pte - 1, ptl); > @@ -395,18 +400,20 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, > seq_printf(m, > "Size: %8lu kB\n" > "Rss: %8lu kB\n" > + "Pss: %8lu kB\n" > "Shared_Clean: %8lu kB\n" > "Shared_Dirty: %8lu kB\n" > "Private_Clean: %8lu kB\n" > "Private_Dirty: %8lu kB\n" > "Referenced: %8lu kB\n", > (vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start) >> 10, > - sarg.mss.resident >> 10, > + sarg.mss.resident >> 10, > + (unsigned long)(mss->pss >> 22), > sarg.mss.shared_clean >> 10, > sarg.mss.shared_dirty >> 10, > sarg.mss.private_clean >> 10, > sarg.mss.private_dirty >> 10, > - sarg.mss.referenced >> 10); > + sarg.mss.referenced >> 10); > > return ret; > } > If we are reasonably sure that mapping will not change at the time of page_rmap_xxxxx() operations, we could handle shared accounting at those points and implement accurate shared accounting. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps [not found] <20070814013350.GA9182@mail.ustc.edu.cn> 2007-08-14 1:33 ` [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps Fengguang Wu @ 2007-08-14 6:19 ` Matt Mackall [not found] ` <20070815002936.GA8982@mail.ustc.edu.cn> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Matt Mackall @ 2007-08-14 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton, John Berthels, linux-kernel On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 09:33:50AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > The "proportional set size" (PSS) of a process is the count of pages it has in > memory, where each page is divided by the number of processes sharing it. So if > a process has 1000 pages all to itself, and 1000 shared with one other process, > its PSS will be 1500. > - lwn.net: "ELC: How much memory are applications really using?" > > The PSS proposed by Matt Mackall is a very nice metic for measuring an process's > memory footprint. So collect and export it via /proc/<pid>/smaps. > > Matt Mackall's pagemap/kpagemap and John Berthels's exmap can also do the job, > providing pretty much details. But for PSS, let's do it in a simple way. Yes, if people actually want to use this particular metric a lot (and I obviously personally think it makes a lot of sense), then it should be done in kernel like this. > Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> > Cc: John Berthels <jjberthels@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> > --- > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2.orig/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ const struct file_operations proc_maps_o > struct mem_size_stats > { > unsigned long resident; > + u64 pss; /* proportional set size: my share of rss */ 64 bits? > unsigned long shared_clean; > unsigned long shared_dirty; > unsigned long private_clean; > @@ -341,6 +342,7 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u > pte_t *pte, ptent; > spinlock_t *ptl; > struct page *page; > + int mapcount; > > pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl); > for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) { > @@ -357,16 +359,19 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u > /* Accumulate the size in pages that have been accessed. */ > if (pte_young(ptent) || PageReferenced(page)) > mss->referenced += PAGE_SIZE; > - if (page_mapcount(page) >= 2) { > + mapcount = page_mapcount(page); > + if (mapcount >= 2) { > if (pte_dirty(ptent)) > mss->shared_dirty += PAGE_SIZE; > else > mss->shared_clean += PAGE_SIZE; > + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << 12) / mapcount; Hmm, what's that shift for? Oh, you're doing fixed-point math. 64-bit divisions are quite expensive on some platforms. The compiler might be able to do something smarter with common constants like: if (mapcount == 1) mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE; else if (mapcount == 2) mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE / 2; else if (mapcount == 3) mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE / 3; else if (mapcount == 4) mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE / 4; else mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE / mapcount; ..but I don't know. I suspect we'll at least want to special-case mapcount == 1 though. > + sarg.mss.resident >> 10, > + (unsigned long)(mss->pss >> 22), And then you're throwing away 22 bits of precision. 10 bits wasn't enough? Hmmm.. Looks like the worst case is sharing a 4k page 2049 ways, where we'll be off by .999 bytes per 4k page for nearly 50% error. Your extra 12 bits drops this to .2% error, so I suppose it's worth it. But it probably needs a comment. > - sarg.mss.referenced >> 10); > + sarg.mss.referenced >> 10); Unrelated change. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20070815002936.GA8982@mail.ustc.edu.cn>]
* Re: [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps [not found] ` <20070815002936.GA8982@mail.ustc.edu.cn> @ 2007-08-15 0:29 ` Fengguang Wu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Fengguang Wu @ 2007-08-15 0:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Mackall; +Cc: Andrew Morton, John Berthels, linux-kernel On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 01:19:40AM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 09:33:50AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > The "proportional set size" (PSS) of a process is the count of pages it has in > > memory, where each page is divided by the number of processes sharing it. So if > > a process has 1000 pages all to itself, and 1000 shared with one other process, > > its PSS will be 1500. > > - lwn.net: "ELC: How much memory are applications really using?" > > > > The PSS proposed by Matt Mackall is a very nice metic for measuring an process's > > memory footprint. So collect and export it via /proc/<pid>/smaps. > > > > Matt Mackall's pagemap/kpagemap and John Berthels's exmap can also do the job, > > providing pretty much details. But for PSS, let's do it in a simple way. > > Yes, if people actually want to use this particular metric a lot (and > I obviously personally think it makes a lot of sense), then it should > be done in kernel like this. Thank you for the acknowledge, Matt. > > Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> > > Cc: John Berthels <jjberthels@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> > > --- > > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2.orig/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > > @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ const struct file_operations proc_maps_o > > struct mem_size_stats > > { > > unsigned long resident; > > + u64 pss; /* proportional set size: my share of rss */ > > 64 bits? Yes, to accommodate the extra 12 bits for error shifting. > > unsigned long shared_clean; > > unsigned long shared_dirty; > > unsigned long private_clean; > > @@ -341,6 +342,7 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u > > pte_t *pte, ptent; > > spinlock_t *ptl; > > struct page *page; > > + int mapcount; > > > > pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl); > > for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) { > > @@ -357,16 +359,19 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u > > /* Accumulate the size in pages that have been accessed. */ > > if (pte_young(ptent) || PageReferenced(page)) > > mss->referenced += PAGE_SIZE; > > - if (page_mapcount(page) >= 2) { > > + mapcount = page_mapcount(page); > > + if (mapcount >= 2) { > > if (pte_dirty(ptent)) > > mss->shared_dirty += PAGE_SIZE; > > else > > mss->shared_clean += PAGE_SIZE; > > + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << 12) / mapcount; > > Hmm, what's that shift for? Oh, you're doing fixed-point math. > > 64-bit divisions are quite expensive on some platforms. The compiler > might be able to do something smarter with common constants like: > > if (mapcount == 1) > mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE; > else if (mapcount == 2) > mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE / 2; > else if (mapcount == 3) > mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE / 3; > else if (mapcount == 4) > mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE / 4; > else > mss->pss += PAGE_SIZE / mapcount; > > ..but I don't know. I suspect we'll at least want to special-case > mapcount == 1 though. Don't worry, the PAGE_SIZE being divided is unsigned long. So there's no 64bit division on 32bit CPU :) And we do avoid the division for the common case of mapcount == 1. > > + sarg.mss.resident >> 10, > > + (unsigned long)(mss->pss >> 22), > > And then you're throwing away 22 bits of precision. 10 bits wasn't > enough? Hmmm.. Looks like the worst case is sharing a 4k page 2049 > ways, where we'll be off by .999 bytes per 4k page for nearly 50% > error. Your extra 12 bits drops this to .2% error, so I suppose it's > worth it. > > But it probably needs a comment. OK, I introduced PSS_ERROR_BITS=12, and some comments for it. Note that the output unit of 1KB could be the most significant source of errors :) > > - sarg.mss.referenced >> 10); > > + sarg.mss.referenced >> 10); > > Unrelated change. Ok, removed it. Thank you, Fengguang === PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps The "proportional set size" (PSS) of a process is the count of pages it has in memory, where each page is divided by the number of processes sharing it. So if a process has 1000 pages all to itself, and 1000 shared with one other process, its PSS will be 1500. - lwn.net: "ELC: How much memory are applications really using?" The PSS proposed by Matt Mackall is a very nice metic for measuring an process's memory footprint. So collect and export it via /proc/<pid>/smaps. Matt Mackall's pagemap/kpagemap and John Berthels's exmap can also do the job. They are comprehensive tools. But for PSS, let's do it in the simple way. Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> Cc: John Berthels <jjberthels@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> --- fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) --- linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2.orig/fs/proc/task_mmu.c +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2/fs/proc/task_mmu.c @@ -324,6 +324,27 @@ struct mem_size_stats unsigned long private_clean; unsigned long private_dirty; unsigned long referenced; + + /* + * Proportional Set Size(PSS): my share of RSS. + * + * PSS of a process is the count of pages it has in memory, where each + * page is divided by the number of processes sharing it. So if a + * process has 1000 pages all to itself, and 1000 shared with one other + * process, its PSS will be 1500. (lwn.net) + */ + u64 pss; + /* + * To keep (accumulated) division errors low, we adopt 64bit pss and + * use some low bits for division errors. So (pss >> PSS_ERROR_BITS) + * would be the real byte count. + * + * A shift of 12 before division means(assuming 4K page size): + * - 1M 3-user-pages add up to 8KB errors; + * - supports mapcount up to 2^24, or 16M; + * - supports PSS up to 2^52 bytes, or 4PB. + */ +#define PSS_ERROR_BITS 12 }; struct smaps_arg @@ -341,6 +362,7 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u pte_t *pte, ptent; spinlock_t *ptl; struct page *page; + int mapcount; pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl); for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) { @@ -357,16 +379,19 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u /* Accumulate the size in pages that have been accessed. */ if (pte_young(ptent) || PageReferenced(page)) mss->referenced += PAGE_SIZE; - if (page_mapcount(page) >= 2) { + mapcount = page_mapcount(page); + if (mapcount >= 2) { if (pte_dirty(ptent)) mss->shared_dirty += PAGE_SIZE; else mss->shared_clean += PAGE_SIZE; + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << PSS_ERROR_BITS) / mapcount; } else { if (pte_dirty(ptent)) mss->private_dirty += PAGE_SIZE; else mss->private_clean += PAGE_SIZE; + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << PSS_ERROR_BITS); } } pte_unmap_unlock(pte - 1, ptl); @@ -395,6 +420,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, seq_printf(m, "Size: %8lu kB\n" "Rss: %8lu kB\n" + "Pss: %8lu kB\n" "Shared_Clean: %8lu kB\n" "Shared_Dirty: %8lu kB\n" "Private_Clean: %8lu kB\n" @@ -402,6 +428,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, "Referenced: %8lu kB\n", (vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start) >> 10, sarg.mss.resident >> 10, + (unsigned long)(sarg.mss.pss >> (10 + PSS_ERROR_BITS)), sarg.mss.shared_clean >> 10, sarg.mss.shared_dirty >> 10, sarg.mss.private_clean >> 10, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps]
@ 2007-08-14 5:27 Balbir Singh
[not found] ` <20070814065108.GA5524@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Balbir Singh @ 2007-08-14 5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: WU Fengguang
Cc: Andrew Morton, linux kernel mailing list, John Berthels, Matt Mackall
I keep forgetting to check that you are on the cc. My email client
loves dropping you from the to/cc list.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:56:12 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>, John Berthels <jjberthels@gmail.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <387055231.26624@ustc.edu.cn>
Fengguang Wu wrote:
> The "proportional set size" (PSS) of a process is the count of pages it has in
> memory, where each page is divided by the number of processes sharing it. So if
> a process has 1000 pages all to itself, and 1000 shared with one other process,
> its PSS will be 1500.
> - lwn.net: "ELC: How much memory are applications really using?"
>
> The PSS proposed by Matt Mackall is a very nice metic for measuring an process's
> memory footprint. So collect and export it via /proc/<pid>/smaps.
>
> Matt Mackall's pagemap/kpagemap and John Berthels's exmap can also do the job,
> providing pretty much details. But for PSS, let's do it in a simple way.
>
> Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
> Cc: John Berthels <jjberthels@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
I like the idea of moving towards PSS. I had sent some patches back in December
last year
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=116738715329816&w=4
> ---
> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2.orig/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2-mm2/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ const struct file_operations proc_maps_o
> struct mem_size_stats
> {
> unsigned long resident;
> + u64 pss; /* proportional set size: my share of rss */
> unsigned long shared_clean;
> unsigned long shared_dirty;
> unsigned long private_clean;
> @@ -341,6 +342,7 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u
> pte_t *pte, ptent;
> spinlock_t *ptl;
> struct page *page;
> + int mapcount;
>
> pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> @@ -357,16 +359,19 @@ static int smaps_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, u
> /* Accumulate the size in pages that have been accessed. */
> if (pte_young(ptent) || PageReferenced(page))
> mss->referenced += PAGE_SIZE;
> - if (page_mapcount(page) >= 2) {
> + mapcount = page_mapcount(page);
> + if (mapcount >= 2) {
This accounting is of-course racy. Mapcount can change any moment.
> if (pte_dirty(ptent))
> mss->shared_dirty += PAGE_SIZE;
> else
> mss->shared_clean += PAGE_SIZE;
> + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << 12) / mapcount;
> } else {
> if (pte_dirty(ptent))
> mss->private_dirty += PAGE_SIZE;
> else
> mss->private_clean += PAGE_SIZE;
> + mss->pss += (PAGE_SIZE << 12);
> }
> }
> pte_unmap_unlock(pte - 1, ptl);
> @@ -395,18 +400,20 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m,
> seq_printf(m,
> "Size: %8lu kB\n"
> "Rss: %8lu kB\n"
> + "Pss: %8lu kB\n"
> "Shared_Clean: %8lu kB\n"
> "Shared_Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
> "Private_Clean: %8lu kB\n"
> "Private_Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
> "Referenced: %8lu kB\n",
> (vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start) >> 10,
> - sarg.mss.resident >> 10,
> + sarg.mss.resident >> 10,
> + (unsigned long)(mss->pss >> 22),
> sarg.mss.shared_clean >> 10,
> sarg.mss.shared_dirty >> 10,
> sarg.mss.private_clean >> 10,
> sarg.mss.private_dirty >> 10,
> - sarg.mss.referenced >> 10);
> + sarg.mss.referenced >> 10);
>
> return ret;
> }
>
If we are reasonably sure that mapping will not change at the time
of page_rmap_xxxxx() operations, we could handle shared accounting
at those points and implement accurate shared accounting.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread[parent not found: <20070814065108.GA5524@mail.ustc.edu.cn>]
* Re: [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps [not found] ` <20070814065108.GA5524@mail.ustc.edu.cn> @ 2007-08-14 6:51 ` WU Fengguang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: WU Fengguang @ 2007-08-14 6:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Balbir Singh Cc: Andrew Morton, linux kernel mailing list, John Berthels, Matt Mackall On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:57:31AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > I keep forgetting to check that you are on the cc. My email client > loves dropping you from the to/cc list. hehe, sorry for my crappy smtp server ;) > Fengguang Wu wrote: > > The "proportional set size" (PSS) of a process is the count of pages it has in > > memory, where each page is divided by the number of processes sharing it. So if > > a process has 1000 pages all to itself, and 1000 shared with one other process, > > its PSS will be 1500. > > - lwn.net: "ELC: How much memory are applications really using?" > > > > The PSS proposed by Matt Mackall is a very nice metic for measuring an process's > > memory footprint. So collect and export it via /proc/<pid>/smaps. > > > > Matt Mackall's pagemap/kpagemap and John Berthels's exmap can also do the job, > > providing pretty much details. But for PSS, let's do it in a simple way. > > > > Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> > > Cc: John Berthels <jjberthels@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> > > I like the idea of moving towards PSS. I had sent some patches back in December > last year > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=116738715329816&w=4 Thank you. That's a pretty comprehensive work. > > - if (page_mapcount(page) >= 2) { > > + mapcount = page_mapcount(page); > > + if (mapcount >= 2) { > > This accounting is of-course racy. Mapcount can change any moment. Sure it is: I never expect to provide accurate numbers. The mapcount here is to prevent divide-by-zero errors. > If we are reasonably sure that mapping will not change at the time > of page_rmap_xxxxx() operations, we could handle shared accounting > at those points and implement accurate shared accounting. That would be desirable, if only we can keep the cost low ;) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-08-15 0:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20070814013350.GA9182@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
2007-08-14 1:33 ` [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps Fengguang Wu
2007-08-14 5:26 ` Balbir Singh
2007-08-14 6:19 ` Matt Mackall
[not found] ` <20070815002936.GA8982@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
2007-08-15 0:29 ` Fengguang Wu
2007-08-14 5:27 [Fwd: Re: [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps] Balbir Singh
[not found] ` <20070814065108.GA5524@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
2007-08-14 6:51 ` [PATCH] PSS(proportional set size) accounting in smaps WU Fengguang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome