- Subject: Re: inux-next: Tree for Apr 27 (uml + mm/memcontrol.c)
- From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 16:01:04 +0200
- Cc: Hiroyuki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyuki@xxxxxxxxx>, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20120504172420.GF24639@google.com>
- References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1204271141040.28516@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20120427132343.fbb443b9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1204271420350.4631@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20120427143646.8209627e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <87fwbnag6u.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205030208120.21476@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <CABEgKgqWo=b=o7PwOLc=QqCWXQxUaYvMX99GP9cR_Y-RoTEW3g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205031343300.1631@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <CABEgKgoNaWtoNN_DOH+KTg7VHYDxVCyekcUC3TBfA313TR0jCw@mail.gmail.com> <20120504172420.GF24639@google.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri 04-05-12 10:24:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (cc'ing Johannes and Michal, hi guys)
>
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:17:11AM +0900, Hiroyuki Kamezawa wrote:
> > > Cgroups is moving to a single hierarchy for simplification, this isn't the
> > > only example of where this is currently suboptimal and it would be
> > > disappointing to solidify hugetlb control as part of memcg because of this
> > > current limitation that will be addressed by generic cgroups development.
> > >
> > > Folks, once these things are merged they become an API that can't easily
> > > be shifted around and seperated out later. The decision now is either to
> > > join hugetlb control with memcg forever when they act in very different
> > > ways or to seperate them so they can be used and configured individually.
> >
> > How do other guys think ? Tejun ?
>
> I don't know. hugetlbfs already is this franken thing which is
> separate from the usual memory management. It needing cgroup type
> resource limitation feels a bit weird to me. Isn't this supposed to
> be used in more-or-less tightly controlled setups? The whole thing
> needs to have its memory cut out from boot after all.
>
> If someone really has to add cgroup support to hugetlbfs, I'm more
> inclined to say let them play in their own corner unless incorporating
> it into memcg makes it inherently better.
I would agree with you but my impression from the previous (hugetlb)
implementation was that it is much harder to implement the charge moving
if we do not use page_cgroup.
Also the range tracking is rather ugly and clumsy.
> That said, I really don't know that much about mm. Johannes, Michal,
> what do you guys think?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux USB Devel]
[Video for Linux]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Free Online Dating]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]