On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, David Rientjes wrote: > > The reason that I opted not to include a breakdown of each hugetlb > > size in memory.stat is only because I wanted to keep the addition that > > this patch makes as minimal as possible, while still addressing > > the goal of bridging the gap between memory.stat and memory.current. > > Users who are curious about this breakdown can see how much memory > > is used by each hugetlb size by enabling the hugetlb controller as well. > > > > While the patch may be minimal, this is solidifying a kernel API that > users will start to count on. Users who may be interested in their > hugetlb usage may not have control over the configuration of their kernel? > > Does it make sense to provide a breakdown in memory.stat so that users can > differentiate between mapping one 1GB hugetlb page and 512 2MB hugetlb > pages, which are different global resources? > > > It's true that this is the case as well for total hugeltb usage, but > > I felt that not including hugetlb memory usage in memory.stat when it > > is accounted by memory.current would cause confusion for the users > > not being able to see that memory.current = sum of memory.stat. On the > > other hand, seeing the breakdown of how much each hugetlb size felt more > > like an optimization, and not a solution that bridges a confusion. > > > > If broken down into hugetlb_2048kB and hugetlb_1048576kB on x86, for > example, users could still do sum of memory.stat, no?> > Friendly ping on this, would there be any objections to splitting the memory.stat metrics out to be per hugepage size?
