On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: > Now, I think... > > 1. I need to agree that overhead is _not_ negligible. > > 2. THP should be the way rather than hugetlb for my main target platform. > (shmem/tmpfs should support THP. we need study.) > user-experience should be fixed by THP+tmpfs+memcg. > > 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. I don't think we should account 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. 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@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>