On Thu, 24 May 2012, Andrew Morton wrote: > These arguments look pretty strong to me. But poorly timed :( > What I argued here is nothing new, I said the same thing back on April 27 and I was expecting it to be reproposed as a seperate controller. The counter argument that memcg shouldn't cause a performance degradation doesn't hold water: you can't expect every page to be tracked without incurring some penalty somewhere. And it certainly causes ~1% of memory to be used up at boot with all the struct page_cgroups. The counter argument that we'd have to duplicate cgroup setup and initialization code from memcg also is irrelevant: all generic cgroup mounting, creation, and initialization code should be in kernel/cgroup.c. Obviously there will be added code because we're introducing a new cgroup, but that's not a reason to force everybody who wants to control hugetlb pages to be forced to enable memcg. -- 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>