From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem limitation - slab. Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:30:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20120731163027.GE17078@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=nmdNQNGr0nfV8Do7/qRmH1rU3mccD737lGBW3enPVqc=; b=cTkG0dtjifgXKw+krniYwr9QrRBZRMxuIDUwxcMpCwOa1/iO9ANTmJnbOPD6eN6dHh FbSZEz0G0n96M/WcoFM2kNtnAx6GNM5ouofG52KyZmpOgbV2OCmuhckEAkyecKSBM/EB IDfukbHE9HjkzQ0raYPYELa3D3cen0htoWNtDPPiAOlW283MD+I1/H6WVvr3UieMs6vs eF1mrTfM5z77PUFTmI8n2PWoOWj/LIyD8yM7ozTmtvEa0wyjFsm66b2szBGqwW770voQ fhVuWYNLVj/8rbXXYqcyzoo2dX3YZ67DABCtrGsThuIbWoZ/tMbKS9U7ZbeYNs6Iinzq Y9Kg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Greg Thelen , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:38:11PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > Hi, > > This is the slab part of the kmem limitation mechanism in its last form. I > would like to have comments on it to see if we can agree in its form. I > consider it mature, since it doesn't change much in essence over the last > forms. However, I would still prefer to defer merging it and merge the > stack-only patchset first (even if inside the same merge window). That patchset > contains most of the infrastructure needed here, and merging them separately > would not only reduce the complexity for reviewers, but allow us a chance to > have independent testing on them both. I would also likely benefit from some > extra testing, to make sure the recent changes didn't introduce anything bad. What is the status of the stack-only limitation patchset BTW? Does anybody oppose to its merging? Thanks. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010asp103.postini.com [74.125.245.223]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D30F56B0068 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by yenr5 with SMTP id r5so7423077yen.14 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:30:31 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem limitation - slab. Message-ID: <20120731163027.GE17078@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Greg Thelen , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , devel@openvz.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:38:11PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > Hi, > > This is the slab part of the kmem limitation mechanism in its last form. I > would like to have comments on it to see if we can agree in its form. I > consider it mature, since it doesn't change much in essence over the last > forms. However, I would still prefer to defer merging it and merge the > stack-only patchset first (even if inside the same merge window). That patchset > contains most of the infrastructure needed here, and merging them separately > would not only reduce the complexity for reviewers, but allow us a chance to > have independent testing on them both. I would also likely benefit from some > extra testing, to make sure the recent changes didn't introduce anything bad. What is the status of the stack-only limitation patchset BTW? Does anybody oppose to its merging? Thanks. -- 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: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755565Ab2GaQal (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:30:41 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:33272 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753202Ab2GaQaj (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:30:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:30:31 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Greg Thelen , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , devel@openvz.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem limitation - slab. Message-ID: <20120731163027.GE17078@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:38:11PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > Hi, > > This is the slab part of the kmem limitation mechanism in its last form. I > would like to have comments on it to see if we can agree in its form. I > consider it mature, since it doesn't change much in essence over the last > forms. However, I would still prefer to defer merging it and merge the > stack-only patchset first (even if inside the same merge window). That patchset > contains most of the infrastructure needed here, and merging them separately > would not only reduce the complexity for reviewers, but allow us a chance to > have independent testing on them both. I would also likely benefit from some > extra testing, to make sure the recent changes didn't introduce anything bad. What is the status of the stack-only limitation patchset BTW? Does anybody oppose to its merging? Thanks.