Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific locking

[Lord Glauber Costa of Sealand <glommer@parallels.com>]

On 01/25/2013 02:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 25-01-13 14:05:04, Glauber Costa wrote:
> [...]
>>> Glauber Costa (6):
>>>   memcg: prevent changes to move_charge_at_immigrate during task attach
>>>   memcg: split part of memcg creation to css_online
>>>   memcg: fast hierarchy-aware child test.
>>>   memcg: replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific memcg_lock
>>>   memcg: increment static branch right after limit set.
>>>   memcg: avoid dangling reference count in creation failure.
>>>
>>
>> Tejun,
>>
>> This applies ontop of your cpuset patches. Would you pick this (would be
>> my choice), or would you rather have it routed through somewhere mmish ?
> 
> I would vote to -mm. Or is there any specific reason to have it in
> cgroup tree? It doesn't touch any cgroup core parts, does it?
> 
Copying Andrew (retroactively sorry you weren't directly CCd on this one
as well).

I depend on css_online and the cgroup generic iterator. If they are
already present @ -mm, then fine.
(looking now, they seem to be...)

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>