On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 I was thinking I'll just rebase my patches on top of this patch and add the files for the reservations myself, since Guiseppe doesn't have an implementation of that locally so the files would be dummies (or maybe they would mirror the current counters). But if Guiseppe is adding them then that's fine too. I would prefer names: hugetlb.<hugepagesize>.current_reservations hugetlb.<hugepagesize>.max_reservations Note that reservations need both a current and a max that is distinct from the allocation current and max, because users may want to set a limit on only the reservation counter or allocation counter. > -- > Mike Kravetz
