linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] slab accounting for memcg

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <505C36D4.60303@parallels.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:43:48 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] slab accounting for memcg

On 09/21/2012 01:40 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Glauber,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
>> This is a followup to the previous kmem series. I divided them logically
>> so it gets easier for reviewers. But I believe they are ready to be merged
>> together (although we can do a two-pass merge if people would prefer)
>>
>> Throwaway git tree found at:
>>
>>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/glommer/memcg.git kmemcg-slab
>>
>> There are mostly bugfixes since last submission.
> 
> Overall, I like this series a lot. However, I don't really see this as a
> v3.7 material because we already have largeish pending updates to the
> slab allocators. I also haven't seen any performance numbers for this
> which is a problem.
> 
> So what I'd really like to see is this series being merged early in the
> v3.8 development cycle to maximize the number of people eyeballing the
> code and looking at performance impact.
> 
> Does this sound reasonable to you Glauber?

Absolutely.

As I've stated before, I actually believe the kmemcg-stack and
kmemcg-slab (this one) portions should be merged separately. (So we can
sort out issues more easily, and point to the right place)

The first one is a lot more stable and got a lot more love. The goal of
this one is to get it reviewed so we can merge as soon as we can - but
not sooner.

early v3.8 sounds perfect to me.
--
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/