[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:48:17 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
Cc: Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@...wei.com>, tj@...nel.org,
lizefan@...wei.com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Liujiang <jiang.liu@...wei.com>, dhillf@...il.com,
Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: create hugetlb cgroup file in hugetlb_init
On Wed 12-12-12 12:23:29, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 12-12-12 18:44:13, Xishi Qiu wrote:
[...]
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > __initcall functions will be called in
> > start_kernel()
> > rest_init() // -> slab is already
> > kernel_init()
> > kernel_init_freeable()
> > do_basic_setup()
> > do_initcalls()
> >
> > and setup_hugepagesz() will be called in
> > start_kernel()
> > parse_early_param() // -> before mm_init() -> kmem_cache_init()
> >
> > Is this right?
>
> Yes this is right. I just noticed that kmem_cache_init_late is an __init
> function as well and didn't realize it is called directly. Sorry about
> the confusion.
> Anyway I still think it would be a better idea to move the call into the
> hugetlb_cgroup_create callback where it is more logical IMO but now that
> I'm looking at other controllers (blk and kmem.tcp) they all do this from
> init calls as well. So it doesn't make sense to have hugetlb behave
> differently.
>
> So
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Ohh, and this deserves to be backported to stable (since 3.6).
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists