From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lord Glauber Costa of Sealand Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific locking Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:27:55 +0400 Message-ID: <51025E2B.4080105@parallels.com> References: <1358862461-18046-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <510258D0.6060407@parallels.com> <20130125101854.GC8876@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130125101854.GC8876@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Michal Hocko Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton 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: email@kvack.org