[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1206110220290.6843@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, mgorman@...e.de, dhillf@...il.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, mhocko@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> Now, I think...
>
> 1. I need to agree that overhead is _not_ negligible.
>
> 2. THP should be the way rather than hugetlb for my main target platform.
> (shmem/tmpfs should support THP. we need study.)
> user-experience should be fixed by THP+tmpfs+memcg.
>
> 3. It seems Aneesh decided to have independent hugetlb cgroup.
>
> So, now, I admit to have independent hugetlb cgroup.
> Other opinions ?
>
I suggested the seperate controller in the review of the patchset so I
obviously agree with your conclusion. I don't think we should account for
hugetlb pages in memory.usage_in_bytes and enforce memory.limit_in_bytes
since 512 4K pages is not the same as 1 2M page which may be a sacred
resource if fragmentation is high.
Many thanks to Aneesh for continuing to update the patchset and working
toward a resolution on this, I love the direction its taking.
--
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