Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status

Michal Hocko
2015-08-24T08:51:31Z

On Fri 21-08-15 09:30:33, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:53:21AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 20-08-15 23:34:51, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Reading a single file is, of course, easier but is it really worth the
> > > > additional code? I haven't really looked at the patch so I might be
> > > > missing something but what would be an advantage over reading
> > > > /proc/<pid>/smaps and extracting the information from there?
> > >
> > > My first idea was just "users should feel it useful", but permission as David
> > > commented sounds a good technical reason to me.
> >
> > 9 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > is quite a lot especially when it touches hot paths like fork so it
> > better should have a good usecase. I have already asked in the other
> > email but is actually anybody requesting this? Nice to have is not
> > a good justification IMO.
>
> I need some way to judge the real rss of a process, including huge
> pages. No strong opinion on implementation details, but something is
> clearly needed.

The current implementation makes me worry. Is the per hstate break down
really needed? The implementation would be much more easier without it.

> If you have processes with 99% huge pages, you are currently reduced to
> guesswork.

If you have 99% of hugetlb pages then your load is rather specific and I
would argue that /proc/<pid>/smaps (after patch 1) is a much better way to
get what you want.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs