Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1216119
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status |
| Date | 2015-08-31 11:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q3tpT-3oo-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <q1vPc-4OX-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <q1Cxk-6ew-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <q1R3j-1Qg-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <q1Zay-524-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <q299V-2Go-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu 27-08-15 10:23:51, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 08:48:18AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On x86, HUGE_MAX_HSTATE == 2. I don't consider that to be expensive. > > > > > > If you are concerned about the memory allocation of struct hugetlb_usage, > > > it could easily be embedded directly in struct mm_struct. > > > > Yes I am concerned about that and > > 9 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > for something that is even not clear to be really required. And I still > > haven't heard any strong usecase to justify it. > > > > Can we go with the single and much simpler cumulative number first and > > only add the break down list if it is _really_ required? We can even > > document that the future version of /proc/<pid>/status might add an > > additional information to prepare all the parsers to be more careful. > > I don't care much which way we decide. But I find your reasoning a bit > worrying. If someone asks for a by-size breakup of hugepages in a few > years, you might have existing binaries that depend on the _absence_ of > those extra characters on the line. > > Compare: > HugetlbPages: 18432 kB > HugetlbPages: 1069056 kB (1*1048576kB 10*2048kB) > > Once someone has written a script that greps for 'HugetlbPages:.*kB$', > you have lost the option of adding anything else to the line. If you think that an explicit note in the documentation is not sufficient then I believe we can still handle it backward compatible. Like separate entries for each existing hugetlb page: HugetlbPages: 1069056 kB Hugetlb2MPages: 20480 kB Hugetlb1GPages: 1048576 kB or something similar. I would even argue this would be slightly easier to parse. So it is not like we would be locked into anything. > You have > created yet another ABI compatibility headache today in order to save > 112 lines of code. > > That may be a worthwhile tradeoff, I don't know. But at least I realize > there is a cost, while you seem to ignore that component. There is > value in not painting yourself into a corner. My primary point was that we are adding a code for a feature nobody actually asked for just because somebody might ask for it in future. -- 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/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> - 2015-08-20 10:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-20 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-08-20 22:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-21 08:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Jörn Engel <joern@purestorage.com> - 2015-08-21 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> - 2015-08-21 01:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-21 09:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Jörn Engel <joern@purestorage.com> - 2015-08-21 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-24 11:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-08-26 01:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-26 08:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-08-27 00:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-27 08:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Jörn Engel <joern@purestorage.com> - 2015-08-27 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-08-27 22:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2015-08-31 11:20 +0200
csiph-web