From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB98C3A5A6 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:42:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786F7233A1 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:42:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="pBO9kFI7" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727024AbfH2Amb (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:42:31 -0400 Received: from mail-yw1-f68.google.com ([209.85.161.68]:35449 "EHLO mail-yw1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726400AbfH2Amb (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:42:31 -0400 Received: by mail-yw1-f68.google.com with SMTP id g19so568578ywe.2 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:42:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JGRwNGErn4fgKcrUQ6xiTdFGa/UMxL0bW7u4f7HW4+s=; b=pBO9kFI77gE/gtpKbWkDAhKyiVvqdGWPANz9tNI0ulLcwYHoReFSfdXsKvIH5b2ukK WGnn+9GA91GX0cvQr5BUecBkiW3S29/Rw0gTWQUMFlFjv518j/HXADFAj+4761buG12B iyiEMUsd42x8e+ChjWSlMASRf9onmoRTvLke52aYFW5iHXS/bcePN11ElmPPs2wEHwr+ +lo9WwG12RwAezKZNZnE+4D2qf1ZmnQwI4Yefcvpkkl6fjQclDsYV6Df+hzX3xOmZ8Wm w625t6PosUftPeW/9D5oDaSYkeGL4TR12mZ+mdAvFl3FLIEjoe+eb+wrL1d7u+9yz/dL GWgA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JGRwNGErn4fgKcrUQ6xiTdFGa/UMxL0bW7u4f7HW4+s=; b=VycfQ41e1q/7f49zrDID0AZ+qBCDlpK9p39/VvzSvxxRESQIJBxWLaleCOhSacbbYE Tfpvf17FKK6WU2/iuxNoux0g0EIuX/KmTec4AtPoeS+2pPuMjO/DvudGD0yAv49lisqA 3M2S+Yz/0xTI3u4+nEx50pnaT46OLi44V4g5K3r/CEWk6dyLrlDHe34rNSEoPNS/t4sL K7JCwjWAeg0ah+RQjuuMjlBJ4UVibw7yGZa5vLo8BX9B5P2YUwkmSXIGf8/mh83cBLnm a0ihZgqaxxE+vjeZuIYRnWnkhlL/tM7xT8mH/KpyOv2OpgEjXK5hzK3CQB3iWBV5dSyr osFw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWcStzKdaQ6siktP+ohMz9p5yk1UAGK/ClFF4rvT6J5dXIZlydM NlKV10YBJe/t4YGwTDKbZy/fIjobiqk4fcQ53+wwwQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy5sKfSQACB2NAIiSOftUd7x4Lw2pJ4Aa//yGOwNk/VbNo7vi6L+kgnsQlyUjh9vJq+0hA9wmBNIT5b9wnNNlk= X-Received: by 2002:a81:6643:: with SMTP id a64mr4939106ywc.205.1567039350010; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:42:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190826233240.11524-1-almasrymina@google.com> <20190828112340.GB7466@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20190828112340.GB7466@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Shakeel Butt Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:42:17 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] hugetlb_cgroup: Add hugetlb_cgroup reservation limits To: Michal Hocko Cc: Mina Almasry , mike.kravetz@oracle.com, shuah@kernel.org, David Rientjes , Greg Thelen , Andrew Morton , khalid.aziz@oracle.com, LKML , Linux MM , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Cgroups , aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mkoutny@suse.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 4:23 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 26-08-19 16:32:34, Mina Almasry wrote: > > mm/hugetlb.c | 493 ++++++++++++------ > > mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c | 187 +++++-- > > This is a lot of changes to an already subtle code which hugetlb > reservations undoubly are. Moreover cgroupv1 is feature frozen and I am > not aware of any plans to port the controller to v2. That all doesn't > sound in favor of this change. Actually "no plan to port the controller to v2" makes the case strong for these changes (and other new features) to be done in v1. If there is an alternative solution in v2 then I can understand the push-back on changes in v1 but that is not the case here. Shakeel