From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755873Ab2GaQme (ORCPT ); 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 ); 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 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederic Weisbecker CC: , , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Greg Thelen , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , , 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: 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010asp103.postini.com [74.125.245.223]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98EDB6B0088 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:26:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50180A42.2050806@parallels.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:39:30 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Frederic Weisbecker 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 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. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem limitation - slab. Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:39:30 +0400 Message-ID: <50180A42.2050806@parallels.com> References: <1343227101-14217-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120731163027.GE17078@somewhere.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120731163027.GE17078-oHC15RC7JGTpAmv0O++HtFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Greg Thelen , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.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.