From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem limitation - slab. Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:39:30 +0400 Message-ID: <50180A42.2050806@parallels.com> References: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120731163027.GE17078@somewhere.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120731163027.GE17078-oHC15RC7JGTpAmv0O++HtFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Frederic Weisbecker 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 07/31/2012 08:30 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 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. > Andrew said he would like to see the slab patches in a relatively mature state first. I do believe they are in such a state. There are bugs, that I am working on - but I don't see anything that would change them significantly at this point. If Andrew is happy with what he saw in this thread, I could post those again.