From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755565Ab2GaQal (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:30:41 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:33272 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753202Ab2GaQaj (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:30:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:30:31 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Greg Thelen , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , devel@openvz.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem limitation - slab. Message-ID: <20120731163027.GE17078@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.