SODA Noriyuki wrote:

> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:25:36 +1000,
> 	Simon Burge <simonb@wasabisystems.com> said:
> 
> > I added some evcnt counters and after 25 hours on my 512MB 2.0 branch
> > i386 (with yamt's recent anonpages accounting fix) I see:
> > 
> > 	thoreau 10> vmstat -ev | grep uvmscan
> > 	uvmscan anonunder                                 0        0 misc
> > 	uvmscan fileunder                                 0        0 misc
> > 	uvmscan execunder                              1745        0 misc
> > 	uvmscan anonover                                457        0 misc
> > 	uvmscan fileover                               1079        0 misc
> > 	uvmscan execover                                  0        0 misc
> >
> > Is it worth adding this to our sources (maybe #ifdef UVMSCAN_COUNTERS)?
> > The "uvmscan" might be better as "uvmpd_scan" too...
> 
> I'm not sure whether just counting those numbers is really useful or not.
> 
> For example,
> 
> - fileover is just fine. actually, causing fileover condition is most
>   important reason for existence of vm.{anon,exec,file}{min,max}.
> - not causing fileover condition may be fine too, as far as anonover
>   and execover don't happen at the same time.
> - causing execover also may be fine, as far as fileover happens at
>   the same time.
> - even causing anonover may be fine, if fileover and execover happen
>   at the same time.
> 
> According to your result, there isn't any execover although there
> is anonover, this probably means your vm.execmax is too large.

This sort of analysis is one reason for adding the counters :-)

Simon.
--
Simon Burge                            <simonb@wasabisystems.com>
NetBSD Support and Service:         http://www.wasabisystems.com/