Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific locking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 01/25/2013 02:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 25-01-13 14:05:04, Glauber Costa wrote:
> [...]
>>> Glauber Costa (6):
>>>   memcg: prevent changes to move_charge_at_immigrate during task attach
>>>   memcg: split part of memcg creation to css_online
>>>   memcg: fast hierarchy-aware child test.
>>>   memcg: replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific memcg_lock
>>>   memcg: increment static branch right after limit set.
>>>   memcg: avoid dangling reference count in creation failure.
>>>
>>
>> Tejun,
>>
>> This applies ontop of your cpuset patches. Would you pick this (would be
>> my choice), or would you rather have it routed through somewhere mmish ?
> 
> I would vote to -mm. Or is there any specific reason to have it in
> cgroup tree? It doesn't touch any cgroup core parts, does it?
> 
Copying Andrew (retroactively sorry you weren't directly CCd on this one
as well).

I depend on css_online and the cgroup generic iterator. If they are
already present @ -mm, then fine.
(looking now, they seem to be...)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux