[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120427162459.322d145a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:24:59 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: inux-next: Tree for Apr 27 (uml + mm/memcontrol.c)
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> > Minor matter: that's non-responsive to my suggestion.
> >
>
> If it's moved to a new cgroup then we can just go back to the original
> point that I made as was trying to avoid: adding #ifdefs all over
> mm/memcontrol.c in a dozen or so places. A mm/hugetlbcg.c would only be
> built, natually, when we have "depends on HUGETLB_PAGE" and
> linux/hugetlb.h takes care of the rest (setting HUGE_MAX_HSTATE for archs
> that don't define it themselves, in other words only one hugepage size).
And if it isn't moved to a new cgroup then your
memcg-add-hugetlb-extension-fix.patch is suboptimal. Why is this so
hard?
--
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