archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Rientjes <>
To: Mina Almasry <>
Cc: "Mike Kravetz" <>,
	"Aneesh Kumar" <>,
	shuah <>, "Shakeel Butt" <>,
	"Greg Thelen" <>,
	"Andrew Morton" <>,,
	"open list" <>,,,, "Michal Koutný" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation limits
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 12:28:11 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Mina Almasry wrote:

> > I personally prefer the one counter approach only for the reason that it
> > exposes less information about hugetlb reservations.  I was not around
> > for the introduction of hugetlb reservations, but I have fixed several
> > issues having to do with reservations.  IMO, reservations should be hidden
> > from users as much as possible.  Others may disagree.
> >
> > I really hope that Aneesh will comment.  He added the existing hugetlb
> > cgroup code.  I was not involved in that effort, but it looks like there
> > might have been some thought given to reservations in early versions of
> > that code.  It would be interesting to get his perspective.
> >
> > Changes included in patch 4 (disable region_add file_region coalescing)
> > would be needed in a one counter approach as well, so I do plan to
> > review those changes.
> OK, FWIW, the 1 counter approach should be sufficient for us, so I'm
> not really opposed. David, maybe chime in if you see a problem here?
> From the perspective of hiding reservations from the user as much as
> possible, it is an improvement.
> I'm only wary about changing the behavior of the current and having
> that regress applications. I'm hoping you and Aneesh can shed light on
> this.

I think neither Aneesh nor myself are going to be able to provide a 
complete answer on the use of hugetlb cgroup today, anybody could be using 
it without our knowledge and that opens up the possibility that combining 
the limits would adversely affect a real system configuration.

If that is a possibility, I think we need to do some due diligence and try 
to deprecate allocation limits if possible.  One of the benefits to 
separate limits is that we can make reasonable steps to deprecating the 
actual allocation limits, if possible: we could add warnings about the 
deprecation of allocation limits and see if anybody complains.

That could take the form of two separate limits or a tunable in the root 
hugetlb cgroup that defines whether the limits are for allocation or 

Combining them in the first pass seems to be very risky and could cause 
pain for users that will not detect this during an rc cycle and will 
report the issue only when their distro gets it.  Then we are left with no 
alternative other than stable backports and the separation of the limits 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-26 19:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-19 22:24 [PATCH v5 0/7] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation limits Mina Almasry
2019-09-19 22:24 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation counter Mina Almasry
2019-09-19 22:24 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] hugetlb_cgroup: add interface for charge/uncharge hugetlb reservations Mina Almasry
2019-09-19 22:24 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] hugetlb_cgroup: add reservation accounting for private mappings Mina Almasry
2019-09-19 22:24 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] hugetlb: disable region_add file_region coalescing Mina Almasry
2019-09-27 21:44   ` Mike Kravetz
2019-09-27 22:33     ` Mina Almasry
2019-09-19 22:24 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] hugetlb_cgroup: add accounting for shared mappings Mina Almasry
2019-09-19 22:24 ` [PATCH v5 6/7] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation tests Mina Almasry
2019-09-19 22:24 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation docs Mina Almasry
2019-09-23 17:47 ` [PATCH v5 0/7] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation limits Mike Kravetz
2019-09-23 19:18   ` Mina Almasry
2019-09-23 21:27     ` Mike Kravetz
2019-09-24 22:42       ` Mina Almasry
2019-09-26 19:28         ` David Rientjes [this message]
2019-09-26 21:23           ` Mike Kravetz
2019-09-27  0:55             ` Mina Almasry
2019-09-27 21:59               ` Mike Kravetz
2019-09-27 22:51                 ` Mina Almasry
2019-09-27 22:56                   ` Mike Kravetz
2019-09-30 15:12               ` Michal Koutný
2019-10-11 19:10   ` Mina Almasry
2019-10-11 20:41     ` Mina Almasry
2019-10-14 17:33       ` Mike Kravetz
2019-10-14 18:01         ` Mina Almasry

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).