On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 08:49:32PM +0100, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 12/3/19 6:46 AM, Michal Koutný wrote: > >> Hello. > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> - hugetlb.<hugepagesize>.current > >>> - hugetlb.<hugepagesize>.max > >>> - hugetlb.<hugepagesize>.events > >> Just out of curiosity (perhaps addressed to Mike), does this naming > >> account for the potential future split between reservations and > >> allocations charges? > > > > Mina has been working/pushing the effort to add reservations to cgroup > > accounting and would be the one to ask. However, it does seem that the > > names here should be created in anticipation of adding reservations in > > the future. So, perhaps something like: > > > > hugetlb_usage.<hugepagesize>.current > > > > with the new functionality having names like > > > > hugetlb_reserves.<hugepagesize>.current > > that seems to be very different than other cgroup v2 file names. Yes, let's not add two separate controller names. > Should it be something like? > > hugetlb.<hugepagesize>.current_usage > hugetlb.<hugepagesize>.current_reserves Why not hugetlb.<hugepagesize>.current to indicate memory actively in use by allocations and hugetlb.<hugepagesize>.reserve to indicate explicit reserves by the hugetlb subsystem?
