On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:38:22 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: KB> On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:31:17AM +0300, Mikolaj Golub wrote: >> >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:54:48 +0200 Ivan Voras wrote: >> >> IV> On 1 June 2012 14:35, Wojciech Puchar <woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> >> wrote: >> >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~ivoras/stuff/spsurvey.py >> >> ... >> >> IV> If anyone posts more data, I'll analyse it. I'm more worried about the >> IV> granularity of procstat, where it marks the entire region if a single >> IV> superpage exists in it - it means any such analysis is only >> IV> approximate. >> >> Here is a patch (for kernel and procstat) that allows to see amount of pages >> mapped to superpages. >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/procstat-superpages.cnt.1.patch >> >> Not sure it is useful enough to be committed.
KB> Superpage aggregates mappings for several normal-sized pages. KB> As a consequence, when you iterate over small pages in KB> sysctl_kern_proc_vmmap(), you account each superpage as many time as KB> much constituent small pages it contains. This is exactly what my intention was to count: how much memory are handled by superpages (using normal-sized page as a measurement unit), not amount of superpages. And I think this is what Ivan wanted to know. Do you think it is better to return number of superpages? -- Mikolaj Golub _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
