Re: Strange memory usage reporting
From: Hugh Dickins <hidden>
Date: 2003-08-27 14:44:14
Also in:
lkml
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Ingo Oeser wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:03:14PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:quoted
Which is the driver involved? Though it's not wrong to give do_no_page a Reserved page, beware of the the page->count accounting: while it's Reserved, get_page or page_cache_get raises the count, but put_page or page_cache_release does not decrement it - very easy to end up with the page never freed.Why is this so asymetric? I would understand ignoring these pages in the freeing logic, but why exclude them also from refcounting?
I don't think there's a _good_ reason, it just evolved that way. The real answer is to get rid of PageReserved completely, which I'll embark on again in 2.7 (I did start a couple of times in 2.5, but each time it was too late). There was a halfway-house suggestion in 2.5 about three months ago, inspired (as usual) by Reserved page problems in AIO's get_user_pages, to do as you suggest: submit them to normal refcounting. I don't know what became of that, I didn't have much time to get involved. Hugh -- 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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>