Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756096AbbHZGiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:38:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]:34199 "EHLO mail-wi0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751951AbbHZGiQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:38:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:38:14 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: David Rientjes Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel , Naoya Horiguchi , Andrew Morton , Mike Kravetz , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Naoya Horiguchi Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Message-ID: <20150826063813.GA25196@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20150812000336.GB32192@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <1440059182-19798-1-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> <1440059182-19798-3-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> <20150820110004.GB4632@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150820233450.GB10807@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20150821065321.GD23723@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150821163033.GA4600@Sligo.logfs.org> <20150824085127.GB17078@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2141 Lines: 43 On Tue 25-08-15 16:23:34, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > The current implementation makes me worry. Is the per hstate break down > > really needed? The implementation would be much more easier without it. > > > > Yes, it's needed. It provides a complete picture of what statically > reserved hugepages are in use and we're not going to change the > implementation when it is needed to differentiate between variable hugetlb > page sizes that risk breaking existing userspace parsers. I thought the purpose was to give the amount of hugetlb based resident memory. At least this is what J?rn was asking for AFAIU. /proc//status should be as lightweight as possible. The current implementation is quite heavy as already pointed out. So I am really curious whether this is _really_ needed. I haven't heard about a real usecase except for top displaying HRss which doesn't need the break down values. You have brought that up already http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143941143109335&w=2 and nobody actually asked for it. "I do not mind having it" is not an argument for inclusion especially when the implementation is more costly and touches hot paths. > > If you have 99% of hugetlb pages then your load is rather specific and I > > would argue that /proc//smaps (after patch 1) is a much better way to > > get what you want. > > Some distributions change the permissions of smaps, as already stated, for > pretty clear security reasons since it can be used to defeat existing > protection. There's no reason why hugetlb page usage should not be > exported in the same manner and location as memory usage. /proc//status provides only per-memory-type break down information (locked, data, stack, etc...). Different hugetlb sizes are still a hugetlb memory. So I am not sure I understand you argument here. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/