On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:15:44 -0500 Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 02:07:45PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Hi! > > > I thought there was a request to make memroy resource controller > > (CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR) availele in Fedora10 age. > > (But not configured.) > > > > I'd like to request memory cgroup configured in Fedora 11. > > (I'm sorry if too late.) > > > > This is what we currently have enabled in Fedora 11's generic config: > > kyle@minerva ~/rpms/kernel/devel $ grep CGROUP config-generic > CONFIG_NET_CLS_CGROUP=y > CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED=y > CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=y > CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP=y > CONFIG_CGROUPS=y > # CONFIG_CGROUP_DEBUG is not set > CONFIG_CGROUP_NS=y > CONFIG_CGROUP_CPUACCT=y > CONFIG_CGROUP_DEVICE=y > CONFIG_CGROUP_FREEZER=y > CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_CONT=y > kyle@minerva ~/rpms/kernel/devel $ > Wow, thanks ! (I wonder CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_CONT may be stale config name..) > > Comapring current implementation(2.6.28) with the version half year ago, > > > > - There is no pointer from struct page. > > > > IIRC, this pointer was a big obstacle for the merge request. > > Right, we were concerned it would impact performance because it pushed > struct page passed the size of a single cacheline. > > > BTW, what kernel version Fedora11 will be based on ? > > I prefer 2.6.29-rc version of memory cgroup rather than 2.6.28 ;) > > > > The current plan is for F11 to be based on 2.6.29, but it's possible > (though extremely unlikely) that if .29 stabilizes very quickly that we > might end up on .30, but I wouldn't bet on it. :) > Thank you for quick response, very informative! Regards, -Kame > > Thanks, > > -Kame > > cheers, Kyle > _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
