On Mon 11-06-12 14:33:52, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Sat 09-06-12 14:29:55, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Add the hugetlb cgroup pointer to 3rd page lru.next.
> >
> > Interesting and I really like the idea much more than tracking by
> > page_cgroup.
> >
> >> This limit the usage to hugetlb cgroup to only hugepages with 3 or
> >> more normal pages. I guess that is an acceptable limitation.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Other than some nits I like this.
> > Thanks!
> >
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/hugetlb_cgroup.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> mm/hugetlb.c | 4 ++++
> >> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb_cgroup.h b/include/linux/hugetlb_cgroup.h
> >> index 5794be4..ceff1d5 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb_cgroup.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb_cgroup.h
> >> @@ -26,6 +26,26 @@ struct hugetlb_cgroup {
> >> };
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_HUGETLB_RES_CTLR
> >> +static inline struct hugetlb_cgroup *hugetlb_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!PageHuge(page))
> >> + return NULL;
> >> + if (compound_order(page) < 3)
> >
> > Why 3? I think you wanted 2 here, right?
>
> Yes that should be 2. I updated that in an earlier. Already in v9
> version I have locally.
ohh, I should have read replies to the patch first where you already
mentioned that you are aware of that.
Maybe it would be worth something like:
/* Minimum page order trackable by hugetlb cgroup.
* At least 3 pages are necessary for all the tracking information.
*/
#define HUGETLB_CGROUP_MIN_ORDER 2
> >> @@ -591,6 +592,7 @@ static void update_and_free_page(struct hstate *h, struct page *page)
> >> 1 << PG_active | 1 << PG_reserved |
> >> 1 << PG_private | 1 << PG_writeback);
> >> }
> >> + BUG_ON(hugetlb_cgroup_from_page(page));
> >
> > What about VM_BUG_ON?
>
> Will do, So when do one decide to choose VM_BUG_ON against BUG_ON ?
I think that VM_ variant is more approapriate here because it is more a
debugging thing rather than a hard failure invariant.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>