Re: [PATCH -V5 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>]

(2012/04/09 17:43), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:

> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> writes:
> 
>> (2012/04/07 3:50), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
>>
>>
>> Hmm, seems ok to me. please explain 'this patch doesn't include updates
>> for memcg destroying, it will be in patch 12/14' or some...
>>
>> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
>>
>>
>> BTW, you don't put res_counter for hugeltb under CONFIG_MEM_RES_CTLR_HUGETLB...
>> do you think we need the config ?
> 
> 
> That results in more #ifdef CONFIG_MEM_RES_CTLR_HUGETLB in the
> memcg code (mem_cgroup_create/mem_cgroup_read/write etc). I was not
> sure we want to do that. Let me know if you think we really need to do this.
> 


Hm. ok. BTW, how about removing all CONFIG_MEM_RES_CTLR_HUGETLB and makes 
all codes just depends on CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR && CONFIG_HUGETLB ?

How other guys thinks ? (Anyway we can do it later....)

Thanks,
-Kame