Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 07:15:08 -0500
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, kernel-team@fb.com,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: hugetlbfs basic usage accounting
Message-ID: <20171115121508.GA2501@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20171114172429.8916-1-guro@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171114172429.8916-1-guro@fb.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 05:24:29PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> This patch implements basic accounting of memory consumption
> by hugetlbfs pages for cgroup v2 memory controller.
> 
> Cgroup v2 memory controller lacks any visibility into the
> hugetlbfs memory consumption. Cgroup v1 implemented a separate
> hugetlbfs controller, which provided such stats, and also
> provided some control abilities. Although porting of the
> hugetlbfs controller to cgroup v2 is arguable a good idea and
> is outside of scope of this patch, it's very useful to have
> basic stats provided by memory.stat.
> 
> As hugetlbfs memory can easily represent a big portion of total
> memory, it's important to understand who (which memcg/container)
> is using it.

I'm not really buying this argument.

Hugetlb setups tend to be static configurations that require intimate
coordination between booting the kernel with a hugetlb reservation and
precisely setting up the application(s).

In the few cases where you need introspection, you can check the the
HugetlbPages entry in /proc/<pid>/status. The minor convenience
provided by adding an aggregate cgroup counter IMO doesn't outweigh
the weirdness of listing a type of resource in memory.stat that isn't
otherwise acknowledged or controllable as memory.

From 1584134406376385943@xxx Wed Nov 15 12:18:17 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584064111544134567
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread