On Fri 08-06-12 16:06:12, Andrew Morton wrote:

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.

 
I guess you are talking about v7 which is mem_cgroup based. This one has
some drawbacks (e.g. the most user visible one is that if one wants to
disable memory overhead from memcg he has to disable hugetlb controller
as well).
v8 took a different approach ((ab)use lru.next on the 3rd page to store
the group pointer) which looks as a reasonable compromise.

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

I think that v8 (+fixups) is the way to go.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic