(2012/04/09 17:43), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> (2012/04/07 3:50), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> >>> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> 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 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>