Re: [PATCH -V6 07/14] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension

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.