From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751393Ab2FIORO (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jun 2012 10:17:14 -0400 Received: from e28smtp07.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.7]:40160 "EHLO e28smtp07.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750769Ab2FIORM (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jun 2012 10:17:12 -0400 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Andrew Morton Cc: David Rientjes , linux-mm@kvack.org, mgorman@suse.de, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , dhillf@gmail.com, aarcange@redhat.com, mhocko@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Ying Han Subject: Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension In-Reply-To: <20120608160612.dea6d1ce.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1334573091-18602-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1334573091-18602-8-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120527202848.GC7631@skywalker.linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87lik920h8.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> <20120608160612.dea6d1ce.akpm@linux-foundation.org>User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+346~g13d19c3 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:46:52 +0530 Message-ID: <87zk8cfu3v.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii x-cbid: 12060914-8878-0000-0000-000002D5B452 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton writes: > On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:13:31 +0530 > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" wrote: > >> >> >> >> - code: seperating hugetlb bits out from memcg bits to avoid growing >> >> mm/memcontrol.c beyond its current 5650 lines, and >> >> >> > >> > I can definitely look at spliting mm/memcontrol.c >> > >> > >> >> - performance: not incurring any overhead of enabling memcg for per- >> >> page tracking that is unnecessary if users only want to limit hugetlb >> >> pages. >> >> >> >> Since Andrew didn't sent the patchset to Linus because of this >> discussion, I looked at reworking the patchset as a seperate >> controller. The patchset I sent here >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/79230 >> >> have seen minimal testing. I also folded the fixup patches >> Andrew had in -mm to original patchset. >> >> Let me know if the changes looks good. > > This is starting to be a problem. I'm still sitting on the old version > of this patchset and it will start to get in the way of other work. > > We now have this new version of the patchset which implements a > separate controller but it is unclear to me which way we want to go. > > Can the memcg developers please drop everything else and make a > decision here? David Rientjes didn't like HugetTLB limit to be a memcg extension and wanted this to be a separate controller. I posted a v7 version that did HugeTLB limit as a separate controller and used page cgroup to track HugeTLB cgroup. Kamezawa Hiroyuki didn't like the usage of page_cgroup in HugeTLB controller( http://mid.gmane.org/4FCD648E.90709@jp.fujitsu.com ) I ended up doing a v8 that used page[2].lru.next for storing hugetlb controller. http://mid.gmane.org/1339232401-14392-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com I guess that should address all the concerns. -aneesh