[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205241615540.9453@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.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
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension
On Thu, 24 May 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
> These arguments look pretty strong to me. But poorly timed :(
>
What I argued here is nothing new, I said the same thing back on April 27
and I was expecting it to be reproposed as a seperate controller. The
counter argument that memcg shouldn't cause a performance degradation
doesn't hold water: you can't expect every page to be tracked without
incurring some penalty somewhere. And it certainly causes ~1% of memory
to be used up at boot with all the struct page_cgroups.
The counter argument that we'd have to duplicate cgroup setup and
initialization code from memcg also is irrelevant: all generic cgroup
mounting, creation, and initialization code should be in kernel/cgroup.c.
Obviously there will be added code because we're introducing a new cgroup,
but that's not a reason to force everybody who wants to control hugetlb
pages to be forced to enable memcg.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists