[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120731163027.GE17078@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:30:31 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, devel@...nvz.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] memcg kmem limitation - slab.
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.
--
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