Re: inux-next: Tree for Apr 27 (uml + mm/memcontrol.c)

[David Rientjes]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > > Minor matter: that's non-responsive to my suggestion.
> > > 
> > 
> > If it's moved to a new cgroup then we can just go back to the original 
> > point that I made as was trying to avoid: adding #ifdefs all over 
> > mm/memcontrol.c in a dozen or so places.  A mm/hugetlbcg.c would only be 
> > built, natually, when we have "depends on HUGETLB_PAGE" and 
> > linux/hugetlb.h takes care of the rest (setting HUGE_MAX_HSTATE for archs 
> > that don't define it themselves, in other words only one hugepage size).
> 
> And if it isn't moved to a new cgroup then your
> memcg-add-hugetlb-extension-fix.patch is suboptimal.  Why is this so
> hard?
> 

It _should_ be moved to a new cgroup: there's no reason why someone should 
need to enable memcg (and incur ~1% of metadata overhead that comes with 
it) if they just want to seperate a global hugepage pool amongst a set of 
tasks.  Perhaps Aneesh has a reasoning behind this, I dunno.

And yes, memcg-add-hugetlb-extension-fix.patch is a build fix for the 
linux-next breakage.  If it's seperated out to mm/hugetlbcg.c, this is all 
irrelevant.  I'd like to determine the direction of this feature before 
proposing any fixes for build breakage.  In other words, if 
memcg-add-hugetlb-extension.patch is rewritten then 
memcg-add-hugetlb-extension-fix.patch is useless.
--
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/