[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60642.1318560959@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:55:59 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
paul@...lmenage.org, gthelen@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kirill@...temov.name, avagin@...allels.com,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Request for inclusion: tcp memory buffers
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:05:58 +0400, Glauber Costa said:
> On 10/14/2011 12:00 AM, David Miller wrote:
> > Make this evaluate into exactly the same exact code stream we have
> > now when the memory cgroup feature is not in use, which will be the
> > majority of users.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "not in use" ? Not compiled in or not
> actively being exercised ? If you mean the later, I appreciate tips on
> how to achieve it.
>
> Also, I kind of dispute the affirmation that !cgroup will encompass
> the majority of users, since cgroups is being enabled by default by
> most vendors. All systemd based systems use it extensively, for instance.
Yes, systemd requires a kernel that includes cgroups. However, systemd does
*not* require the memory cgroup feature. As a practical matter, if your patch
doesn't generate equivalent code for the "have cgroups, but no memory cgroup"
situation, it's a non-starter.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists