Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate?

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:39:42 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi, Andrew,
> 
> I've been wondering if the scalability fixes for root overhead in
> memory cgroup is a candidate for 2.6.31?

These?

memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch
memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability-checkpatch-fixes.patch
memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability-v5.patch


> They don't change
> functionality but help immensely using existing accounting features.
> 
> Opening up the email for more debate and discussion and thoughts.
> 

They don't apply terribly well to mainline:

patching file mm/memcontrol.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 70.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 479.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 1295.
Hunk #4 FAILED at 1359.
Hunk #5 FAILED at 1432.
Hunk #6 FAILED at 1514.
Hunk #7 FAILED at 1534.
Hunk #8 FAILED at 1605.
Hunk #9 FAILED at 1798.
Hunk #10 FAILED at 1826.
Hunk #11 FAILED at 1883.
Hunk #12 FAILED at 1981.
Hunk #13 succeeded at 2091 (offset -405 lines).
12 out of 13 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file mm/memcontrol.c.rej
Failed to apply memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability

so maybe you're referring to these:

memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup.patch
memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup-fix.patch
memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup-fix-2.patch

as well.

But then memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch still doesn't
apply.  Maybe memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch depends
on memory-controller-soft-limit-*.patch too.  I stopped looking.

It's a lot of material and a lot of churn.  I'd be more inclined to
proceed with a 2.6.32 merge and then perhaps you can see if you can
come up with a minimal patchset for -stable, see if the -stable
maintainers can be talked into merging it.