From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] memcg remove pre_destroy Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:06:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20120412160642.GA13069@google.com> References: <4F86B9BE.8000105@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=M/ADfApD7rYBWDP+1lU72+qm2+stJ+wDyA8FBMZ/Oxk=; b=Fp4KRXGE2ww2KUp15w0x/9FTL4LuNQOkOxWIV7tV4tL4wLQgLlwxAJiaLm250Ucvtd 1s94Ldij8C+UT219uSIQZGpHZfPZujnyR7wQflGgDZd0ZTBsMO5XGSj3q+LXoeiv22Ol lTxMrJFcPHqwgu2Zr5AS6MtBNLxcmgXUmCpTW6Y1quYniqYtYJv0ZPtT0eM3JOV94WmX okd7Ov6otQ1km/CCwzdSdkVlO3A+AlqLN0lw6X2VICp6BQP89s7TV2aZaugS+oebBDwy IozmZx085bm5BCfHXW+ViBaqZ/tGXXVekOf9WApPsH2ceo6329tAyydFWs0D364xaE9c iBFQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F86B9BE.8000105-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org" , "cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Glauber Costa , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton Hello, KAMEZAWA. Thanks a lot for doing this. On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:17:18PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > In recent discussion, Tejun Heo, cgroup maintainer, has a plan to remove > ->pre_destroy(). And now, in cgroup tree, pre_destroy() failure cause WARNING. Just to clarify, I'm not intending to ->pre_destroy() per-se but the retry behavior of it, so ->pre_destroy() will be converted to return void and called once on rmdir and rmdir will proceed no matter what. Also, with the deprecated behavior flag set, pre_destroy() doesn't trigger the warning message. Other than that, if memcg people are fine with the change, I'll be happy to route the changes through cgroup/for-3.5 and stack rmdir simplification patches on top. Thanks. -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx143.postini.com [74.125.245.143]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6EE166B0044 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:06:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dakh32 with SMTP id h32so2927225dak.9 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:06:42 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] memcg remove pre_destroy Message-ID: <20120412160642.GA13069@google.com> References: <4F86B9BE.8000105@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F86B9BE.8000105@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Glauber Costa , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton Hello, KAMEZAWA. Thanks a lot for doing this. On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:17:18PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > In recent discussion, Tejun Heo, cgroup maintainer, has a plan to remove > ->pre_destroy(). And now, in cgroup tree, pre_destroy() failure cause WARNING. Just to clarify, I'm not intending to ->pre_destroy() per-se but the retry behavior of it, so ->pre_destroy() will be converted to return void and called once on rmdir and rmdir will proceed no matter what. Also, with the deprecated behavior flag set, pre_destroy() doesn't trigger the warning message. Other than that, if memcg people are fine with the change, I'll be happy to route the changes through cgroup/for-3.5 and stack rmdir simplification patches on top. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org