* Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate?
@ 2009-08-20 19:09 ` Balbir Singh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-08-20 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, prarit, andi.kleen, KOSAKI Motohiro,
Daisuke Miyakawa, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar
Hi, Andrew,
I've been wondering if the scalability fixes for root overhead in
memory cgroup is a candidate for 2.6.31? They don't change
functionality but help immensely using existing accounting features.
Opening up the email for more debate and discussion and thoughts.
--
Balbir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate?
@ 2009-08-20 19:09 ` Balbir Singh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-08-20 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, prarit, andi.kleen, KOSAKI Motohiro,
Daisuke Miyakawa, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar
Hi, Andrew,
I've been wondering if the scalability fixes for root overhead in
memory cgroup is a candidate for 2.6.31? They don't change
functionality but help immensely using existing accounting features.
Opening up the email for more debate and discussion and thoughts.
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate?
2009-08-20 19:09 ` Balbir Singh
@ 2009-08-20 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2009-08-20 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: balbir
Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu, prarit, andi.kleen, m-kosaki, dmiyakawa,
linux-mm, linux-kernel, mingo
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate?
@ 2009-08-20 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2009-08-20 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: balbir
Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu, prarit, andi.kleen, m-kosaki, dmiyakawa,
linux-mm, linux-kernel, mingo
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.
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate?
2009-08-20 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2009-08-21 5:28 ` Balbir Singh
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-08-21 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu, prarit, andi.kleen, m-kosaki, dmiyakawa,
linux-mm, linux-kernel, mingo
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [2009-08-20 16:13:25]:
> 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.
>
Yes, I was referring to those
> 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.
>
Yes, there is some diffs that get picked up due to the soft_limit
feature.
> 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.
>
Fair enough.. I do have a backport to 2.6.31-rc5 mainline, but going
the stable route would also work.
Thanks!
--
Balbir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate?
@ 2009-08-21 5:28 ` Balbir Singh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-08-21 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu, prarit, andi.kleen, m-kosaki, dmiyakawa,
linux-mm, linux-kernel, mingo
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [2009-08-20 16:13:25]:
> 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.
>
Yes, I was referring to those
> 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.
>
Yes, there is some diffs that get picked up due to the soft_limit
feature.
> 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.
>
Fair enough.. I do have a backport to 2.6.31-rc5 mainline, but going
the stable route would also work.
Thanks!
--
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-08-21 15:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-08-20 19:09 Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate? Balbir Singh
2009-08-20 19:09 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-20 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
2009-08-20 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
2009-08-21 5:28 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-21 5:28 ` Balbir Singh
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.