[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4701C737.8070906@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:51:11 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Memory controller merge (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
Andrew Morton wrote:
> memory-controller-add-documentation.patch
> memory-controller-resource-counters-v7.patch
> memory-controller-resource-counters-v7-fix.patch
> memory-controller-containers-setup-v7.patch
> memory-controller-accounting-setup-v7.patch
> memory-controller-memory-accounting-v7.patch
> memory-controller-memory-accounting-v7-fix.patch
> memory-controller-memory-accounting-v7-fix-swapoff-breakage-however.patch
> memory-controller-task-migration-v7.patch
> memory-controller-add-per-container-lru-and-reclaim-v7.patch
> memory-controller-add-per-container-lru-and-reclaim-v7-fix.patch
> memory-controller-add-per-container-lru-and-reclaim-v7-fix-2.patch
> memory-controller-add-per-container-lru-and-reclaim-v7-cleanup.patch
> memory-controller-improve-user-interface.patch
> memory-controller-oom-handling-v7.patch
> memory-controller-oom-handling-v7-vs-oom-killer-stuff.patch
> memory-controller-add-switch-to-control-what-type-of-pages-to-limit-v7.patch
> memory-controller-add-switch-to-control-what-type-of-pages-to-limit-v7-cleanup.patch
> memory-controller-add-switch-to-control-what-type-of-pages-to-limit-v7-fix-2.patch
> memory-controller-make-page_referenced-container-aware-v7.patch
> memory-controller-make-charging-gfp-mask-aware.patch
> memory-controller-make-charging-gfp-mask-aware-fix.patch
> memory-controller-bug_on.patch
> mem-controller-gfp-mask-fix.patch
> memcontrol-move-mm_cgroup-to-header-file.patch
> memcontrol-move-oom-task-exclusion-to-tasklist.patch
> memcontrol-move-oom-task-exclusion-to-tasklist-fix.patch
> oom-add-sysctl-to-enable-task-memory-dump.patch
> kswapd-should-only-wait-on-io-if-there-is-io.patch
>
> Hold. This needs a serious going-over by page reclaim people.
>
Hi, Andrew,
I mostly agree with your decision. I am a little concerned however
that as we develop and add more features (a.k.a better statistics/
forced reclaim), which are very important; the code base gets larger,
the review takes longer :)
I was hopeful of getting the bare minimal infrastructure for memory
control in mainline, so that review is easy and additional changes
can be well reviewed as well.
Here are the pros and cons of merging the memory controller
Pros
1. Smaller size, easy to review and merge
2. Incremental development, makes it easier to maintain the
code
Cons
1. Needs more review like you said
2. Although the UI is stable, it's a good chance to review
it once more before merging the code into mainline
Having said that, I'll continue testing the patches and make the
solution more complete and usable.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
-
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