From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364FD6B00CA for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:44:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d28relay04.in.ibm.com (d28relay04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.61]) by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2N9kNci029314 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:16:23 +0530 Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (d28av02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.64]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n2N9kVCV4018324 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:16:31 +0530 Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av02.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2N9kMZe008851 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:46:22 +1100 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:16:10 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7) Message-ID: <20090323094610.GS24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090319165713.27274.94129.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090323125005.0d8a7219.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090323052247.GJ24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090323151245.d6430aaa.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090323151703.de2bf9db.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090323083506.GN24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090323175223.94b644a0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090323175223.94b644a0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-23 17:52:23]: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:05:06 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-23 15:17:03]: > > Kame, if you dislike it please don't enable > > memory.soft_limit_in_bytes. After having sent several revisions of > > your own patchset and helping me with review of several revisions, your > > sudden dislike comes as a surprise. > > I can't think > - we need hook in mem_cgroup_charge/uncharge. > - RB-tree is good. > - don't taking care of kswad is enough > > and memcg should be independent from global memory reclaim AMAP. > > > Please NOTE: I am not saying we'll never see any of the reclaim > > changes you are suggesting, all I am saying is lets do enough test to > > prove it is needed. Lets get the functionality right and then optimize > > if we have to. > > > > But this itself is problem for me. > > When we added > - hierarchy > - swap handling > - etc... > > Almost all bug reports are from Nishimura and Li Zefan, not from *us*. > As long as we fix them, I don't care who reports bugs. I've been testing the patches I have with various configurations, but not hard enough at times. The advantage of -mm is that we get enough testing through the contribution of folks like Li and Nishimura (which is very much appreciated). I am not asking for these patches to go into mainline, but for wider testing in -mm. -- Balbir -- 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