[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150820233450.GB10807@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:34:51 +0000
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Jörn Engel <joern@...estorage.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to
/proc/PID/status
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:00:05PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 20-08-15 08:26:27, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > Currently there's no easy way to get per-process usage of hugetlb pages,
>
> Is this really the case after your previous patch? You have both
> HugetlbPages and KernelPageSize which should be sufficient no?
We can calcurate it from these info, so saying "no easy way" was incorrect :(
> Reading a single file is, of course, easier but is it really worth the
> additional code? I haven't really looked at the patch so I might be
> missing something but what would be an advantage over reading
> /proc/<pid>/smaps and extracting the information from there?
My first idea was just "users should feel it useful", but permission as David
commented sounds a good technical reason to me.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists