linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:46:52 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	mgorman@...e.de,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	dhillf@...il.com, aarcange@...hat.com, mhocko@...e.cz,
	hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:13:31 +0530
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> >> 
>> >>  - code: seperating hugetlb bits out from memcg bits to avoid growing 
>> >>    mm/memcontrol.c beyond its current 5650 lines, and
>> >> 
>> >
>> > I can definitely look at spliting mm/memcontrol.c 
>> >
>> >
>> >>  - performance: not incurring any overhead of enabling memcg for per-
>> >>    page tracking that is unnecessary if users only want to limit hugetlb 
>> >>    pages.
>> >> 
>> 
>> Since Andrew didn't sent the patchset to Linus because of this
>> discussion, I looked at reworking the patchset as a seperate
>> controller. The patchset I sent here
>> 
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/79230
>> 
>> have seen minimal testing. I also folded the fixup patches
>> Andrew had in -mm to original patchset.
>> 
>> Let me know if the changes looks good.
>
> This is starting to be a problem.  I'm still sitting on the old version
> of this patchset and it will start to get in the way of other work.
>
> We now have this new version of the patchset which implements a
> separate controller but it is unclear to me which way we want to go.
>
> Can the memcg developers please drop everything else and make a
> decision here?


David Rientjes didn't like HugetTLB limit to be a memcg extension and
wanted this to be a separate controller. I posted a v7 version that did
HugeTLB limit as a separate controller and used page cgroup to track
HugeTLB cgroup. Kamezawa Hiroyuki didn't like the usage of page_cgroup
in HugeTLB controller( http://mid.gmane.org/4FCD648E.90709@jp.fujitsu.com )

I ended up doing a v8 that used page[2].lru.next for storing hugetlb
controller.

http://mid.gmane.org/1339232401-14392-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com

I guess that should address all the concerns.

-aneesh

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/