From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx159.postini.com [74.125.245.159]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B70A6B0073 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ggm4 with SMTP id 4so3059305ggm.14 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:40:11 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: Fork bomb limitation in memcg WAS: Re: [PATCH 00/11] kmem controller for memcg: stripped down version Message-ID: <20120712154008.GB2185@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1340633728-12785-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120625162745.eabe4f03.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4FE9621D.2050002@parallels.com> <20120626145539.eeeab909.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4FEAD260.4000603@parallels.com> <4FEC1D63.6000903@parallels.com> <20120628152540.cc13a735.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4FF2D9BF.20800@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FF2D9BF.20800@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Christoph Lameter , devel@openvz.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Tejun Heo , Rik van Riel , Daniel Lezcano , Kay Sievers , Lennart Poettering , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Kir Kolyshkin On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:38:39PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 06/29/2012 02:25 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:01:23 +0400 > > Glauber Costa wrote: > > > >> > >> ... > >> > > > > OK, that all sounds convincing ;) Please summarise and capture this > > discussion in the [patch 0/n] changelog so we (or others) don't have to > > go through this all again. And let's remember this in the next > > patchset! > > Thanks, will surely do. > > >> Last, but not least, note that it is totally within my interests to > >> merge the slab tracking as fast as we can. it'll be a matter of going > >> back to it, and agreeing in the final form. > > > > Yes, I'd very much like to have the whole slab implementation in a > > reasonably mature state before proceeding too far with this base > > patchset. > > Does that means that you want to merge them together? I am more than > happy to post the slab part again ontop of that to have people reviewing it. > > But if possible, I believe that merging this part first would help us to > split up testing in a beneficial way, in the sense that if it breaks, we > know at least in which part it is. Not to mention, of course, that > reviewers will have an easier time reviewing it as two pieces. Definetly yeah. This makes the review easier for this tricky chunk. -- 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