[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51626F50.6090204@parallels.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:18:40 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] memcg: make memcg's life cycle the same as cgroup
On 04/07/2013 12:44 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm rebasing this patchset against latest linux-next, and it conflicts with
> "[PATCH v2] memcg: debugging facility to access dangling memcgs." slightly.
>
> That is a debugging patch and will never be pushed into mainline, so should I
> still base this patchset on that debugging patch?
>
It will conflict as well with my shrinking patches: I will still keep
the memcgs in the dangling list, but that will have nothing to do with
debugging. So I will split that patch in a list management part, which
will be used, and a debugging part (with the file + the debugging
information).
I will be happy to rebase it ontop of your series.
> Also that patch needs update (and can be simplified) after this patchset:
> - move memcg_dangling_add() to mem_cgroup_css_offline()
> - remove memcg->memcg_name, and use cgroup_path() in mem_cgroup_dangling_read()?
>
Don't worry about it. If this is just this one patch conflicting, I
would avise Andrew to remove it, and I will provide another (maybe two,
already splitted up) version.
--
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