Re: [PATCH -V2 0/9] memcg: add HugeTLB resource tracking

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 14:28:53 +1100, David Gibson <dwg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 02:40:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu,  1 Mar 2012 14:46:11 +0530
> > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > This patchset implements a memory controller extension to control
> > > HugeTLB allocations. It is similar to the existing hugetlb quota
> > > support in that, the limit is enforced at mmap(2) time and not at
> > > fault time. HugeTLB's quota mechanism limits the number of huge pages
> > > that can allocated per superblock.
> > > 
> > > For shared mappings we track the regions mapped by a task along with the
> > > memcg. We keep the memory controller charged even after the task
> > > that did mmap(2) exits. Uncharge happens during truncate. For Private
> > > mappings we charge and uncharge from the current task cgroup.
> > 
> > I haven't begin to get my head around this yet, but I'd like to draw
> > your attention to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/15/548.  That fix has
> > been hanging around for a while, but I haven't done anything with it
> > yet because I don't like its additional blurring of the separation
> > between hugetlb core code and hugetlbfs.  I want to find time to sit
> > down and see if the fix can be better architected but haven't got
> > around to that yet.
> 
> So.. that version of the fix I specifically rebuilt to address your
> concerns about that blurring - in fact I think it reduces the current
> layer blurring.  I haven't had any reply - what problems do see it as
> still having?
> 

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/179 ?

That is a serious issue isn't it ?

-aneesh

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