From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [patch] mm: memcontrol: lockless page counters Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:28:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20140922172800.GA4343@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1411132928-16143-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20140922144436.GG336@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20140922155049.GA6630@cmpxchg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=iVRCLHsG3p4FOt8/k229Zy4F4Y3PUVNVQOl+K/O9bsY=; b=WpEeMsRGGAe2ccq0yXt9ZM4QnyGspG9gQkoD3iUqiRO/2Y6esIRHRQ5uXVyRRRUcU8 0thlprUjQA9e/JwsKsZab9p6SikxMukBrJJvrOZKeBIEXIzS7NrFm4DILTkhA2+5JMPI YBjyl13osF1yGay+cOuBSs9CkD/SdjYIRii/ep+EGnga+/R+034jwLv6Kggg7emqUvDf zQ13pxwWjeR3S8Nd5GNUrdpF/Pk/eku/XCBD4f5uaxM9vsIBd/1e2IDn+wZDDyGPsJ1I eUm5LWjPQSA/R3I3CYeNayBjyNJZmNlvRZDSvNvhhXbIWX5XJCCv2obh5TVbCnx+rMvL 0x2A== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140922155049.GA6630@cmpxchg.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Johannes Weiner Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Greg Thelen , Dave Hansen , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 22-09-14 11:50:49, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:44:36PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 19-09-14 09:22:08, Johannes Weiner wrote: [...] > > Nevertheless I think that the counter should live outside of memcg (it > > is ugly and bad in general to make HUGETLB controller depend on MEMCG > > just to have a counter). If you made kernel/page_counter.c and led both > > containers select CONFIG_PAGE_COUNTER then you do not need a dependency > > on MEMCG and I would find it cleaner in general. > > The reason I did it this way is because the hugetlb controller simply > accounts and limits a certain type of memory and in the future I would > like to make it a memcg extension, just like kmem and swap. I am not sure this is the right way to go. Hugetlb has always been "special" and I do not see any advantage to pull its specialness into memcg proper. It would just make the code more complicated. I can also imagine users who simply do not want to pay memcg overhead and use only hugetlb controller. Besides that it is not like a separate page_counter with a clear interface would cause more maintenance overhead so I really do not see any reason to pull it into memcg. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org