lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:52:26PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > Support for memcg removal will be added in later patches.
> >
>
> Again, I disagree with this approach because it's adding the functionality
> to memcg when it's unnecessary; it would be a complete legitimate usecase
> to want to limit the number of globally available hugepages to a set of
> tasks without incurring the per-page tracking from memcg.
>
> This can be implemented as a seperate cgroup and as we move to a single
> hierarchy, you lose no functionality if you mount both cgroups from what
> is done here.
>
> It would be much cleaner in terms of
>
> - build: not requiring ifdefs and dependencies on CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE,
> which is a prerequisite for this functionality and is not for
> CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR,

I am not sure we have large number of #ifdef as you have outlined above.
Most of the hugetlb limit code is well isolated already. If we were to
split it as a seperate controller, we will be duplicating code related
cgroup deletion, migration support etc from memcg, because in case
of memcg and hugetlb limit they depend on struct page. So I would expect
we would be end up #ifdef around that code or duplicate them in the
new controller if we were to do hugetlb limit as a seperate controller.

Another reason for it to be part of memcg is, it is normal to look
at hugetlb usage also as a memory usage. One of the feedback I got
for the earlier post is to see if i can enhace the current code to
make sure memory.usage_in_bytes can also account for hugetlb usage.
People would also like to look at memory.limit_in_bytes to limit total
usage. (inclusive of hugetlb).

>
> - code: seperating hugetlb bits out from memcg bits to avoid growing
> mm/memcontrol.c beyond its current 5650 lines, and
>

I can definitely look at spliting mm/memcontrol.c


> - performance: not incurring any overhead of enabling memcg for per-
> page tracking that is unnecessary if users only want to limit hugetlb
> pages.
>

-aneesh



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-27 22:41    [W:0.106 / U:7.884 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site