On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 06:55:30PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:

quoted

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@jp.fujitsu.com )

Yes, and thank you very much for working on v8 to remove the dependency on 
page_cgroup and to seperate this out.  I think it will benefit users who 
don't want to enable all of memcg but still want to account and restrict 
hugetlb page usage, and I think the code seperation is much cleaner 
internally.

I have V9 ready to post. Only change I have against v8 is to fix the compund_order
comparison and folding the charge/uncharge patches with its users. I will wait for
your review feedback before posting V9 so that I can address the review comments
in V9. Once we get V9 out we can get the series added to -mm ?

I'll review that patchset and suggest that the old hugetlb extension in 
-mm be dropped in the interim.

I also agree with dropping the old hugetlb extension patchset in -mm.

-aneesh

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>