On Mon 22-09-14 11:50:49, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:44:36PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 19-09-14 09:22:08, Johannes Weiner wrote: [...] > > Nevertheless I think that the counter should live outside of memcg (it > > is ugly and bad in general to make HUGETLB controller depend on MEMCG > > just to have a counter). If you made kernel/page_counter.c and led both > > containers select CONFIG_PAGE_COUNTER then you do not need a dependency > > on MEMCG and I would find it cleaner in general. > > The reason I did it this way is because the hugetlb controller simply > accounts and limits a certain type of memory and in the future I would > like to make it a memcg extension, just like kmem and swap. I am not sure this is the right way to go. Hugetlb has always been "special" and I do not see any advantage to pull its specialness into memcg proper. It would just make the code more complicated. I can also imagine users who simply do not want to pay memcg overhead and use only hugetlb controller. Besides that it is not like a separate page_counter with a clear interface would cause more maintenance overhead so I really do not see any reason to pull it into memcg. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>