Re: [PATCH 4/6] cgroups: forbid pre_destroy callback to fail

Michal Hocko
2012-10-25T18:48:56Z

On Thu 25-10-12 10:42:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Michal.
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 04:37:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am not sure I understand you here. So are you suggesting
> > s/BUG_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE/ in this patch?
>
> Oh, no, I meant that we can do upto patch 3 of this series and then
> follow up with proper cgroup core update and then stack further
> memcg cleanups on top.

I thought the later cleanups would be on top of the series.

> > > Let's create a cgroup branch and build things there. I don't think
> > > cgroup changes are gonna be a single patch and expect to see at least
> > > some bug fixes afterwards and don't wanna keep them floating separate
> > > from other cgroup changes.
> >
> > > mm being based on top of -next, that should work, right?
> >
> > Well, a tree based on -next is, ehm, impractical. I can create a bug on
> > top of my -mm git branch (where I merge your cgroup common changes) for
> > development and then when we are ready we can send it as a series and
> > push it via Andrew. Would that work for you?
> > Or we can push the core part via Andrew, wait for the merge and work on
> > the follow up cleanups later?
> > It is not like the follow up part is really urgent, isn't it? I would
> > just like the memcg part settled first because this can potentially
> > conflict with other memcg work.
>
> Argh... can we pretty *please* just do a plain git branch? I don't
> care where it is but I want to be able to pull it into cgroup core and

Hohumm, I have tried to apply the series on top of Linus' 3.6 and there
were no conflicts so I can create a branch which you can pull into your
cgroup branch (which I can then merge into -mm git tree).
This would however mean that those patches wouldn't fly through Andrew's
tree. Is this really what we want and what does it give to us?

> yes I do wanna make this happen in this devel cycle. We've been
> sitting on it far too long waiting for memcg.

I can surely imagine that (for the memcg part) but it needs throughout
review.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs