[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1604141321350.6593@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] mm, hugetlb_cgroup: round limit_in_bytes down to
hugepage size
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > +static void hugetlb_cgroup_init(struct hugetlb_cgroup *h_cgroup,
> > + struct hugetlb_cgroup *parent_h_cgroup)
> > +{
> > + int idx;
> > +
> > + for (idx = 0; idx < HUGE_MAX_HSTATE; idx++) {
> > + struct page_counter *counter = &h_cgroup->hugepage[idx];
> > + struct page_counter *parent = NULL;
> > + unsigned long limit;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (parent_h_cgroup)
> > + parent = &parent_h_cgroup->hugepage[idx];
> > + page_counter_init(counter, parent);
> > +
> > + limit = round_down(PAGE_COUNTER_MAX,
> > + 1 << huge_page_order(&hstates[idx]));
> > + ret = page_counter_limit(counter, limit);
> > + VM_BUG_ON(ret);
> > + }
> > +}
>
> I fail to see the point for this. Why would want to round down
> PAGE_COUNTER_MAX? It will never make a real difference. Or am I missing
> something?
Did you try the patch?
If we're rounding down the user value, it makes sense to be consistent
with the upper bound default to specify intent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists