Re: cgroup_disable=memory for 2.6.25?

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Hi Balbir,
> 
> I'm rather surprised that nobody has pushed -mm's
> 
> cgroups-add-cgroup-support-for-enabling-controllers-at-boot-time.patch
> cgroups-add-cgroup-support-for-enabling-controllers-at-boot-time-fix-boot-option-parsing.patch
> memory-controller-make-memory-resource-control-aware-of-boot-options.patch
> 
> into 2.6.25: which was what I'd expected when I first suggested that
> distros might want a way to build with the potential for mem cgroups,
> but be able to switch off their significant overhead for everyone not
> interested.
> 
> Ballpark figures, I'm trying to get this question out rather than
> processing the exact numbers: CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR adds 15%
> overhead to the affected paths, booting with cgroup_disable=memory
> cuts that back to 1% overhead (due to slightly bigger struct page).
> 
> I'm no expert on distros, they may have no interest whatever in
> CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=y; and the rest of us can easily build
> with or without it, or apply the cgroup_disable=memory patches.
> 
> But if those patches serve a purpose, shouldn't they be in 2.6.25?

Hi, Hugh,

I expected those patches to make it into 2.6.25. But ever since 2.6.25-rc5-mm1,
the next -mm was for 2.6.25-rc8. I have been meaning to follow up with Andrew,
but lost with some other patches.

Andrew,

Could we please push these patches upstream before 2.6.25? Or is it too late?


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL