Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 13:59:18 -0700 From: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org> To: List Mailing FreeBSD-STABLE <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Laundry Message-ID: <B7076C77-8367-4BBF-9EA5-A990D69263F5@mail.sermon-archive.info> In-Reply-To: <20200726203112.GB2551@kib.kiev.ua> References: <E17A7D16-B285-4F70-87B9-9A101429025E@mail.sermon-archive.info> <20200726203112.GB2551@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 26 July 2020, at 13:31, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> = wrote: >=20 > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 01:11:33PM -0700, Doug Hardie wrote: >> I have a production system (12.1-RELEASE-p6) that is showing around 1 = GB of Laundry pages. There are over 6 Gb Inact and 1 Gb free. I can = understand why the system would want to not prioritize laundering those = pages as there is plenty of available pages. However, does that mean = that I have about 1 GB of updated files that have not been written back = to disk? If so, then there is a significant issue with power failures = and loss of data. >>=20 > Laundry keeps both file-backed (named) pages and swap-backed = (anonymous) > pages. Most likely it means that you have 1G of anonymous dirty > mappings, for instance programs data/bss and malloced. I don't believe there are very man anonymous pages, but there are lots = of named pages. If those are dirty, does that mean they have not yet = been written back to disk? The loss of those would be quite detrimental = if not written back to disk. -- Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B7076C77-8367-4BBF-9EA5-A990D69263F5>