On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 2:05 PM Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This patch introduces a new counter to memory.stat that tracks hugeTLB > usage, only if hugeTLB accounting is done to memory.current. This > feature is enabled the same way hugeTLB accounting is enabled, via > the memory_hugetlb_accounting mount flag for cgroupsv2. > > 1. Why is this patch necessary? > Currently, memcg hugeTLB accounting is an opt-in feature [1] that adds > hugeTLB usage to memory.current. However, the metric is not reported in > memory.stat. Given that users often interpret memory.stat as a breakdown > of the value reported in memory.current, the disparity between the two > reports can be confusing. This patch solves this problem by including > the metric in memory.stat as well, but only if it is also reported in > memory.current (it would also be confusing if the value was reported in > memory.stat, but not in memory.current) > > Aside from the consistency between the two files, we also see benefits > in observability. Userspace might be interested in the hugeTLB footprint > of cgroups for many reasons. For instance, system admins might want to > verify that hugeTLB usage is distributed as expected across tasks: i.e. > memory-intensive tasks are using more hugeTLB pages than tasks that > don't consume a lot of memory, or are seen to fault frequently. Note that > this is separate from wanting to inspect the distribution for limiting > purposes (in which case, hugeTLB controller makes more sense). > > 2. We already have a hugeTLB controller. Why not use that? > It is true that hugeTLB tracks the exact value that we want. In fact, by > enabling the hugeTLB controller, we get all of the observability > benefits that I mentioned above, and users can check the total hugeTLB > usage, verify if it is distributed as expected, etc. > > With this said, there are 2 problems: > (a) They are still not reported in memory.stat, which means the > disparity between the memcg reports are still there. > (b) We cannot reasonably expect users to enable the hugeTLB controller > just for the sake of hugeTLB usage reporting, especially since > they don't have any use for hugeTLB usage enforcing [2]. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231006184629.155543-1-nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx/ > [2] Of course, we can't make a new patch for every feature that can be > duplicated. However, since the existing solution of enabling the > hugeTLB controller is an imperfect solution that still leaves a > discrepancy between memory.stat and memory.curent, I think that it > is reasonable to isolate the feature in this case. > > Suggested-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> I'll take it ;) > Suggested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@xxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx>
