[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:0.042 / U:3.756 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site