Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 
>  - code: seperating hugetlb bits out from memcg bits to avoid growing 
>    mm/memcontrol.c beyond its current 5650 lines, and
>  - performance: not incurring any overhead of enabling memcg for per-
>    page tracking that is unnecessary if users only want to limit hugetlb 
>    pages.
> Kmem accounting and swap accounting is really a seperate topic and makes 
> sense to be incorporated directly into memcg because their usage is a 
> single number, the same is not true for hugetlb pages where charging one 
> 1GB page is not the same as charging 512 2M pages.  And we have no 
> usecases for wanting to track kmem or swap only without user page 
> tracking, what would be the point?
> There's a reason we don't enable CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR in the 
> defconfig, we don't want the extra 1% metadata overhead of enabling it and 
> the potential performance regression from doing per-page tracking if we 
> only want to limit a global resource (hugetlb pages) to a set of tasks.
> So please consider seperating this functionality out into its own cgroup, 
> there's no reason not to do it and it would benefit hugetlb users who 
> don't want to incur the disadvantages of enabling memcg entirely.

These arguments look pretty strong to me.  But poorly timed :(
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Other Archives]     [Linux Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Driver Development]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Testers]     [Linux SH]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Kbuild]     [Linux Tape]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Kernel Janitors]     [Linux Kernel Packagers]     [Linux Doc]     [Linux Man Pages]     [Linux API]     [Linux Memory Management]     [Linux Modules]     [Linux Standards]     [Kernel Announce]     [Netdev]     [Git]     [Linux PCI]     Linux CAN Development     [Linux I2C]     [Linux RDMA]     [Linux NUMA]     [Netfilter]     [Netfilter Devel]     [SELinux]     [Bugtraq]     [FIO]     [Linux Perf Users]     [Linux Serial]     [Linux PPP]     [Linux ISDN]     [Linux Next]     [Kernel Stable Commits]     [Linux Tip Commits]     [Kernel MM Commits]     [Linux Security Module]     [AutoFS]     [Filesystem Development]     [Ext3 Filesystem]     [Linux bcache]     [Ext4 Filesystem]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux CEPH Filesystem]     [Linux XFS]     [XFS]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux CIFS]     [Ecryptfs]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser FS]     [Initramfs]     [Linux FB Devel]     [Linux OpenGL]     [DRI Devel]     [Fastboot]     [Linux RT Users]     [Linux RT Stable]     [eCos]     [Corosync]     [Linux Clusters]     [LVS Devel]     [Hot Plug]     [Linux Virtualization]     [KVM]     [KVM PPC]     [KVM ia64]     [Linux Containers]     [Linux Hexagon]     [Linux Cgroups]     [Util Linux]     [Wireless]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Bluez Devel]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Embedded Linux]     [Barebox]     [Linux MMC]     [Linux IIO]     [Sparse]     [Smatch]     [Linux Arch]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Linux ACPI]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [LM Sensors]     [CPU Freq]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linmodems]     [Linux DCCP]     [Linux SCTP]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux USB]     [Linux PA RISC]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [MIPS Linux]     [IBM S/390 Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [ARM Kernel]     [ARM MSM]     [Tegra Devel]     [Sparc Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Sound]     [Linux Media]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux IRDA Users]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux SCSI]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SMP]     [Linux AXP]     [Linux Alpha]     [Linux M68K]     [Linux ia64]     [Linux 8086]     [Linux x86_64]     [Linux Config]     [Linux Apps]     [Linux MSDOS]     [Linux X.25]     [Linux Crypto]     [DM Crypt]     [Linux Trace Users]     [Linux Btrace]     [Linux Watchdog]     [Utrace Devel]     [Linux C Programming]     [Linux Assembly]     [Dash]     [DWARVES]     [Hail Devel]     [Linux Kernel Debugger]     [Linux gcc]     [Gcc Help]     [X.Org]     [Wine]

Add to Google Powered by Linux

[Older Kernel Discussion]     [Yosemite National Park Forum]     [Large Format Photos]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Stuff]