Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] memcg/hugetlb: Add hugeTLB counters to memcg

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

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?