Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:30:33 -0700 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: hugetlb: proc: add HugetlbPages field to /proc/PID/status |
| |
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:53:21AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 20-08-15 23:34:51, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > [...] > > > 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. > > 9 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > is quite a lot especially when it touches hot paths like fork so it > better should have a good usecase. I have already asked in the other > email but is actually anybody requesting this? Nice to have is not > a good justification IMO.
I need some way to judge the real rss of a process, including huge pages. No strong opinion on implementation details, but something is clearly needed.
If you have processes with 99% huge pages, you are currently reduced to guesswork.
Jörn
-- Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations. -- George Orwell
| |