From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] memcg: revert kmem.tcp accounting Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:16:30 +0900 Message-ID: <20140916061630.GE805@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1410535618-9601-1-git-send-email-vdavydov@parallels.com> <20140912171809.GA24469@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20140912175516.GB6298@mtj.dyndns.org> <20140912144326.a8d5153d7c91d220ea89924a@linux-foundation.org> 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=F8LDeOzqwt3K6dlgrFC4YA5jdxb8+Yyb8M+j+Jr4axw=; b=qtjEZskQx6PVGfFrnX3OhFZAn5fxmhp2MUERD4t7vSUL+mh1AhDkMxhTRHeCZ02251 52kqwlHOhd4unnv8ND+LF6o4y2Hm/c0jcS0nTyTmmBGHCdzE1O4AVSKzvAJ6onTm/+DI 9K5LTUgrCuN7ge3lpnsq91NjG/q5GidVRJ6IIx/LxwMjxvjdHnKVj+yvw5V/c5VrhiUM 6w2XR3dTlC15zNpp7Z7xwpWsd9VJ1yTC9ihcHxNSxicZL7SMt2ZQI5v8fOqAlgjaXyQz z6Yy2+Zh93tIgBc1bDBC4zyUOGoz1hdZnFGrbMtO48808P+xKvEi3Rmf00Rxo6ccVAX5 TaaA== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140912144326.a8d5153d7c91d220ea89924a-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andrew Morton Cc: Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Li Zefan , "David S. Miller" , Johannes Weiner , Kamezawa Hiroyuki , Glauber Costa , Pavel Emelianov , Greg Thelen , Eric Dumazet , "Eric W. Biederman" Hello, Andrew. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:43:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 17 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 761 deletions(-) > > Sob. > > Is there a convenient way of disabling the whole thing and adding a > please-tell-us printk? If nobody tells us for a year or two then zap. Given that we're in the process of implementing the v2 interface, I don't think it'd be wise to perturb v1 interface at this point. We're gonna have to carry around v1 code for quite some time anyway and I don't think carrying the tcp code would make whole lot of difference given that the code is likely to stay static from now on. Thanks. -- tejun