From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx149.postini.com [74.125.245.149]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C8556B0074 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:31:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lahi5 with SMTP id i5so3102378lah.14 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:31:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1334573091-18602-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1334573091-18602-8-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120527202848.GC7631@skywalker.linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87lik920h8.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> <20120608160612.dea6d1ce.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4FD56C19.4060307@jp.fujitsu.com> From: Aditya Kali Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:31:32 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Kamezawa Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , linux-mm@kvack.org, mgorman@suse.de, dhillf@gmail.com, aarcange@redhat.com, mhocko@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Ying Han On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:23 AM, David Rientjes wrote= : > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: > >> Now, I think... >> >> =C2=A0 1. I need to agree that overhead is _not_ negligible. >> >> =C2=A0 2. THP should be the way rather than hugetlb for my main target p= latform. >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(shmem/tmpfs should support THP. we need study.) >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0user-experience should be fixed by THP+tmpfs+memcg. >> >> =C2=A0 3. It seems Aneesh decided to have independent hugetlb cgroup. >> >> So, now, I admit to have independent hugetlb cgroup. >> Other opinions ? >> > > I suggested the seperate controller in the review of the patchset so I > obviously agree with your conclusion. =C2=A0I don't think we should accou= nt for > hugetlb pages in memory.usage_in_bytes and enforce memory.limit_in_bytes > since 512 4K pages is not the same as 1 2M page which may be a sacred > resource if fragmentation is high. > Based on the usecase at Google, I see a definite value in including hugepage usage in memory.usage_in_bytes as well and having a single limit for memory usage for the job. Our jobs wants to specify only one (total) memory limit (including slab usage, and other kernel memory usage, hugepages, etc.). The hugepage/smallpage requirements of the job vary during its lifetime. Having two different limits means less flexibility for jobs as they now have to specify their limit as (max_hugepage, max_smallpage) instead of max(hugepage + smallpage). Two limits complicates the API for the users and requires them to over-specify the resources. > Many thanks to Aneesh for continuing to update the patchset and working > toward a resolution on this, I love the direction its taking. > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@kvack.org. =C2=A0For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: email@kvack.org Thanks, --=20 Aditya -- 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