Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:00:00 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -V5 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension |
| |
(2012/04/09 17:43), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> writes: > >> (2012/04/07 3:50), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> >>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> >>> This patch implements a memcg extension that allows us to control HugeTLB >>> allocations via memory controller. The extension allows to limit the >>> HugeTLB usage per control group and enforces the controller limit during >>> page fault. Since HugeTLB doesn't support page reclaim, enforcing the limit >>> at page fault time implies that, the application will get SIGBUS signal if it >>> tries to access HugeTLB pages beyond its limit. This requires the application >>> to know beforehand how much HugeTLB pages it would require for its use. >>> >>> The charge/uncharge calls will be added to HugeTLB code in later patch. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> >> Hmm, seems ok to me. please explain 'this patch doesn't include updates >> for memcg destroying, it will be in patch 12/14' or some... >> >> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> >> >> >> BTW, you don't put res_counter for hugeltb under CONFIG_MEM_RES_CTLR_HUGETLB... >> do you think we need the config ? > > > That results in more #ifdef CONFIG_MEM_RES_CTLR_HUGETLB in the > memcg code (mem_cgroup_create/mem_cgroup_read/write etc). I was not > sure we want to do that. Let me know if you think we really need to do this. >
Hm. ok. BTW, how about removing all CONFIG_MEM_RES_CTLR_HUGETLB and makes all codes just depends on CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR && CONFIG_HUGETLB ?
How other guys thinks ? (Anyway we can do it later....)
Thanks, -Kame
| |