From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755873Ab2GaQme (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:42:34 -0400
Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:42317 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755676Ab2GaQmc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:42:32 -0400
Message-ID: <50180A42.2050806@parallels.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:39:30 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
        <devel@openvz.org>, <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem limitation - slab.
References: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120731163027.GE17078@somewhere.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120731163027.GE17078@somewhere.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [109.173.1.99]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 07/31/2012 08:30 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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.
> 
Andrew said he would like to see the slab patches in a relatively mature
state first.

I do believe they are in such a state. There are bugs, that I am working
on - but I don't see anything that would change them significantly at
this point.

If Andrew is happy with what he saw in this thread, I could post those
again.