Re: [PATCH 0/12] memcg updates v5

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

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:48:58 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>> Hi, I updated the stack and reflected comments.
>>> Against the latest mmotm. (rc7-mm1)
>>>
>>> Major changes from previous one is 
>>>   - page_cgroup allocation/lookup manner is changed.
>>>     all FLATMEM/DISCONTIGMEM/SPARSEMEM and MEMORY_HOTPLUG is supported.
>>>   - force_empty is totally rewritten. and a problem that "force_empty takes long time"
>>>     in previous version is fixed (I think...)
>>>   - reordered patches.
>>>      - first half are easy ones.
>>>      - second half are big ones.
>>>
>>> I'm still testing with full debug option. No problem found yet.
>>> (I'm afraid of race condition which have not been caught yet.)
>>>
>>> [1/12]  avoid accounting special mappings not on LRU. (fix)
>>> [2/12]  move charege() call to swapped-in page under lock_page() (clean up)
>>> [3/12]  make root cgroup to be unlimited. (change semantics.)
>>> [4/12]  make page->mapping NULL before calling uncharge (clean up)
>>> [5/12]  make page->flags to use atomic ops. (changes in infrastructure)
>>> [6/12]  optimize stat. (clean up)
>>> [7/12]  add support function for moving account. (new function)
>>> [8/12]  rewrite force_empty to use move_account. (change semantics.)
>>> [9/12]  allocate all page_cgroup at boot. (changes in infrastructure)
>>> [10/12] free page_cgroup from LRU in lazy way (optimize)
>>> [11/12] add page_cgroup to LRU in lazy way (optimize)
>>> [12/12] fix race at charging swap  (fix by new logic.)
>>>
>>> *Any* comment is welcome.
>> Kame,
>>
>> I'm beginning to review test the patches now. It would be really nice to split
>> the development patches from the maintenance ones. I think the full patchset has
>> too many things and is confusing to look at.
>>
> I hope I can do....but maybe difficult.
> If you give me ack, 1,2,4,6, can be pushed at early stage.

I think (1) might be OK, except for the accounting issues pointed out (change in
behaviour visible to end user again, sigh! :( ). Is (1) a serious issue? (2)
seems OK, except for the locking change for mark_page_accessed. I am looking at
(4) and (6) currently.

-- 
	Balbir