Messages in this thread | | | From | "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -V4 04/10] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension | Date | Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:07:14 +0530 |
| |
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> writes:
> On Fri 16-03-12 23:09:24, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > [...] >> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c >> index 6728a7a..4b36c5e 100644 >> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c >> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > [...] >> @@ -4887,6 +5013,7 @@ err_cleanup: >> static struct cgroup_subsys_state * __ref >> mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cont) >> { >> + int idx; >> struct mem_cgroup *memcg, *parent; >> long error = -ENOMEM; >> int node; >> @@ -4929,9 +5056,14 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cont) >> * mem_cgroup(see mem_cgroup_put). >> */ >> mem_cgroup_get(parent); >> + for (idx = 0; idx < HUGE_MAX_HSTATE; idx++) >> + res_counter_init(&memcg->hugepage[idx], >> + &parent->hugepage[idx]); > > Hmm, I do not think we want to make groups deeper in the hierarchy > unlimited as we cannot reclaim. Shouldn't we copy the limit from the parent? > Still not ideal but slightly more expected behavior IMO.
But we should be limiting the child group based on parent's limit only when hierarchy is set right ?
> > The hierarchy setups are still interesting and the limitations should be > described in the documentation... >
It should behave similar to memcg. ie, if hierarchy is set, then we limit using MIN(parent's limit, child's limit). May be I am missing some of the details of memcg use_hierarchy config. My goal was to keep it similar to memcg. Can you explain why do you think the patch would make it any different ?
-aneesh
| |