From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 540251FF17C
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:17:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 67556C96D;
Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:18:00 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <d9f90d89-86c0-4d8c-99c4-75dad55e9cdb@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:17:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250523160029.404400-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<20250523163749.428293-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<20250523163749.428293-3-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<b2bf7b78-7285-44fd-a6c6-d212fc0010dd@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <b2bf7b78-7285-44fd-a6c6-d212fc0010dd@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.030 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 4/4] metrics: add buffer and cache to
meminfo
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 2025-06-02 16:07, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 23.05.25 um 18:37 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
>> From: Folke Gleumes <f.gleumes@proxmox.com>
>>
>> Expose buffers and cache as separate metrics instead of including them
>> in memfree and memused.
>>
>> Originally-by: Folke Gleumes <f.gleumes@proxmox.com>
>> [AL: rebased and adapted to changes that happened in the meantime]
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> src/PVE/ProcFSTools.pm | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/ProcFSTools.pm b/src/PVE/ProcFSTools.pm
>> index 185b2b3..91a69be 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/ProcFSTools.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/ProcFSTools.pm
>> @@ -303,6 +303,8 @@ sub read_meminfo {
>> memfree => 0,
>> memavailable => 0,
>> memused => 0,
>> + membuffers => 0,
>> + memcached => 0,
>> memshared => 0,
>> swaptotal => 0,
>> swapfree => 0,
>> @@ -328,6 +330,8 @@ sub read_meminfo {
>> # available for a new workload, without pushing the system into swap, no amount of calculating
>> # with BUFFER, CACHE, .. will get you there, only the kernel can know this.
>> $res->{memused} = $res->{memtotal} - $d->{memavailable};
>> + $res->{membuffers} = $d->{buffers};
>> + $res->{memcached} = $d->{cached};
>
> Note the comment above the line you add this, which was recently added.
>
> After reading would it make more sense to expose memavailable instead?
>
> As that, e.g., also includes things like SReclaimable, which can be huge,
> see [0] for some more background.
Yeah, I've been toying with the idea of dropping the individual cache
and buffer infos and use memavailable and maybe also the ZFS arc usage.
I'll change that in the next version of this series.
>
> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20131107101345.14d7be90@annuminas.surriel.com/#t
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel