[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension
On Thu, 24 May 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:

> These arguments look pretty strong to me. But poorly timed :(

What I argued here is nothing new, I said the same thing back on April 27
and I was expecting it to be reproposed as a seperate controller. The
counter argument that memcg shouldn't cause a performance degradation
doesn't hold water: you can't expect every page to be tracked without
incurring some penalty somewhere. And it certainly causes ~1% of memory
to be used up at boot with all the struct page_cgroups.

The counter argument that we'd have to duplicate cgroup setup and
initialization code from memcg also is irrelevant: all generic cgroup
mounting, creation, and initialization code should be in kernel/cgroup.c.
Obviously there will be added code because we're introducing a new cgroup,
but that's not a reason to force everybody who wants to control hugetlb
pages to be forced to enable memcg.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-25 01:41    [W:0.221 / U:16.960 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site