Re: [PATCH 1/6] cgroup: make CONFIG_NET_CLS_CGROUP and CONFIG_NETPRIO_CGROUP bool instead of tristate

Daniel Borkmann
2014-01-18T15:27:08Z

On 01/18/2014 04:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 09:08:49AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
>>
>> On 2014/1/18 2:11, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> net_cls and net_prio are the only cgroups which are allowed to be
>>> built as modules. The savings from allowing the two controllers to be
>>> built as modules are tiny especially given that cgroup module support
>>> itself adds quite a bit of complexity.
>>>
>>> The following are the sizes of vmlinux with both built as module and
>>> both built as part of the kernel image with cgroup module support
>>> removed.
>>>
>>> text data bss dec
>>> 20292207 2411496 10784768 33488471
>>> 20293421 2412568 10784768 33490757
>>>
>>> The total difference is 2286 bytes. Given that none of other
>>> controllers has much chance of being made a module and that we're
>>> unlikely to add new modular controllers, the added complexity is
>>> simply not justifiable.
>>>
>>> As a first step to drop cgroup module support, this patch changes the
>>> two config options to bool from tristate and drops module related code
>>> from the two controllers.
>>>
>>
>> I sugguested Daniel to do this for net_cls, and the change has been in
>> net-next.
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=fe1217c4f3f7d7cbf8efdd8dd5fdc7204a1d65a8
>>
>> I was planning to remove module support after that change goes into
>> upstream. :)
>
> Ooh, cool. :)
>
> Unless there's gonna be another rc, I think it's already a bit too
> late for 3.14 anyway. I'll drop the net_cls part and rebase the
> changes on top of rc1 later on.

I think that's 1 patch of your series, right?

I think this one could still go through net-next if you want, that would
avoid a merge conflict.

Best,

Daniel