Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7)

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-23 17:52:23]:

> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:05:06 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-23 15:17:03]:
> > Kame, if you dislike it please don't enable
> > memory.soft_limit_in_bytes. After having sent several revisions of
> > your own patchset and helping me with review of several revisions, your
> > sudden dislike comes as a surprise.
> 
> I can't think
>   - we need hook in mem_cgroup_charge/uncharge.
>   - RB-tree is good.
>   - don't taking care of kswad is enough
> 
> and memcg should be independent from global memory reclaim AMAP.
> 
> > Please NOTE: I am not saying we'll never see any of the reclaim
> > changes you are suggesting, all I am saying is lets do enough test to
> > prove it is needed. Lets get the functionality right and then optimize
> > if we have to.
> > 
> 
> But this itself is problem for me.
> 
> When we added
>   - hierarchy
>   - swap handling
>   - etc...
> 
> Almost all bug reports are from Nishimura and Li Zefan, not from *us*.
>

As long as we fix them, I don't care who reports bugs. I've been
testing the patches I have with various configurations, but not hard
enough at times. The advantage of -mm is that we get enough testing
through the contribution of folks like Li and Nishimura (which is very
much appreciated). I am not asking for these patches to go into
mainline, but for wider testing in -mm. 

-- 
	Balbir

--
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>