[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:

> Now, I think...
> 1. I need to agree that overhead is _not_ negligible.
> 2. THP should be the way rather than hugetlb for my main target platform.
> (shmem/tmpfs should support THP. we need study.)
> user-experience should be fixed by THP+tmpfs+memcg.
> 3. It seems Aneesh decided to have independent hugetlb cgroup.
> So, now, I admit to have independent hugetlb cgroup.
> Other opinions ?

I suggested the seperate controller in the review of the patchset so I
obviously agree with your conclusion. I don't think we should account for
hugetlb pages in memory.usage_in_bytes and enforce memory.limit_in_bytes
since 512 4K pages is not the same as 1 2M page which may be a sacred
resource if fragmentation is high.

Many thanks to Aneesh for continuing to update the patchset and working
toward a resolution on this, I love the direction its taking.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-11 12:01    [W:0.058 / U:74.164 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site