From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: show total hugetlb memory consumption in /proc/meminfo
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:59:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171121195947.GA12709@castle> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171121111907.6952d50adcbe435b1b6b4576@linux-foundation.org>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:19:07AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:15:55 +0000 Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
>
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_hstate(h) {
> > > > + unsigned long count = h->nr_huge_pages;
> > > > +
> > > > + total += (PAGE_SIZE << huge_page_order(h)) * count;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (h == &default_hstate)
> > >
> > > I'm not understanding this test. Are we assuming that default_hstate
> > > always refers to the highest-index hstate? If so why, and is that
> > > valid?
> >
> > As Mike and Michal pointed, default_hstate is defined as
> > #define default_hstate (hstates[default_hstate_idx]),
> > where default_hstate_idx can be altered by a boot argument.
> >
> > We're iterating over all states to calculate total and also
> > print some additional info for the default size. Having a single
> > loop guarantees consistency of these numbers.
> >
>
> OK, I misread the handling of `count' -> HugePages_Total.
>
> It seems unnecessarily obscure?
>
> for_each_hstate(h) {
> unsigned long count = h->nr_huge_pages;
>
> total += (PAGE_SIZE << huge_page_order(h)) * count;
>
> if (h == &default_hstate)
> seq_printf(m,
> "HugePages_Total: %5lu\n"
> "HugePages_Free: %5lu\n"
> "HugePages_Rsvd: %5lu\n"
> "HugePages_Surp: %5lu\n"
> "Hugepagesize: %8lu kB\n",
> count,
> h->free_huge_pages,
> h->resv_huge_pages,
> h->surplus_huge_pages,
> (PAGE_SIZE << huge_page_order(h)) / 1024);
> }
>
> seq_printf(m, "Hugetlb: %8lu kB\n", total / 1024);
>
>
> Why not
>
> seq_printf(m,
> "HugePages_Total: %5lu\n"
> "HugePages_Free: %5lu\n"
> "HugePages_Rsvd: %5lu\n"
> "HugePages_Surp: %5lu\n"
> "Hugepagesize: %8lu kB\n",
> h->nr_huge_pages,
> h->free_huge_pages,
> h->resv_huge_pages,
> h->surplus_huge_pages,
> 1UL << (huge_page_order(h) + PAGE_SHIFT - 10));
>
> for_each_hstate(h)
> total += (PAGE_SIZE << huge_page_order(h)) * h->nr_huge_pages;
> seq_printf(m, "Hugetlb: %8lu kB\n", total / 1024);
>
> ?
The idea was that the local variable guarantees the consistency
between Hugetlb and HugePages_Total numbers. Otherwise we have
to take hugetlb_lock.
What we can do, is to rename "count" into "nr_huge_pages", like:
for_each_hstate(h) {
unsigned long nr_huge_pages = h->nr_huge_pages;
total += (PAGE_SIZE << huge_page_order(h)) * nr_huge_pages;
if (h == &default_hstate)
seq_printf(m,
"HugePages_Total: %5lu\n"
"HugePages_Free: %5lu\n"
"HugePages_Rsvd: %5lu\n"
"HugePages_Surp: %5lu\n"
"Hugepagesize: %8lu kB\n",
nr_huge_pages,
h->free_huge_pages,
h->resv_huge_pages,
h->surplus_huge_pages,
(PAGE_SIZE << huge_page_order(h)) / 1024);
}
seq_printf(m, "Hugetlb: %8lu kB\n", total / 1024);
But maybe taking a lock is not a bad idea, because it will also
guarantee consistency between other numbers (like HugePages_Free) as well,
which is not true right now.
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-21 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-15 23:14 [PATCH v2] mm: show total hugetlb memory consumption in /proc/meminfo Roman Gushchin
2017-11-16 9:11 ` Michal Hocko
2017-11-16 14:22 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-11-17 9:41 ` David Rientjes
2017-11-21 0:51 ` Andrew Morton
2017-11-21 1:09 ` Mike Kravetz
2017-11-21 7:01 ` Michal Hocko
2017-11-21 15:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2017-11-21 19:19 ` Andrew Morton
2017-11-21 19:59 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2017-11-22 0:27 ` Mike Kravetz
2017-11-22 9:10 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171121195947.GA12709@castle \
--to=guro@fb.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).