Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension

[David Rientjes]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/