Andrew Morton [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:13:31 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

 - code: seperating hugetlb bits out from memcg bits to avoid growing 
   mm/memcontrol.c beyond its current 5650 lines, and

I can definitely look at spliting mm/memcontrol.c 

quoted

 - performance: not incurring any overhead of enabling memcg for per-
   page tracking that is unnecessary if users only want to limit hugetlb 
   pages.

Since Andrew didn't sent the patchset to Linus because of this
discussion, I looked at reworking the patchset as a seperate
controller. The patchset I sent here

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/79230

have seen minimal testing. I also folded the fixup patches
Andrew had in -mm to original patchset.

Let me know if the changes looks good.

This is starting to be a problem.  I'm still sitting on the old version
of this patchset and it will start to get in the way of other work.

We now have this new version of the patchset which implements a
separate controller but it is unclear to me which way we want to go.

Can the memcg developers please drop everything else and make a
decision here?

David Rientjes didn't like HugetTLB limit to be a memcg extension and
wanted this to be a separate controller. I posted a v7 version that did
HugeTLB limit as a separate controller and used page cgroup to track
HugeTLB cgroup. Kamezawa Hiroyuki didn't like the usage of page_cgroup
in HugeTLB controller( http://mid.gmane.org/4FCD648E.90709-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org )

I ended up doing a v8 that used page[2].lru.next for storing hugetlb
controller.

http://mid.gmane.org/1339232401-14392-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org

I guess that should address all the concerns.

-aneesh