On Fri 13-04-12 08:59:44, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > (2012/04/13 3:57), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> Hello, KAMEZAWA. > >> > >> Thanks a lot for doing this. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:17:18PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > >>> In recent discussion, Tejun Heo, cgroup maintainer, has a plan to remove > >>> ->pre_destroy(). And now, in cgroup tree, pre_destroy() failure cause WARNING. > >> > >> Just to clarify, I'm not intending to ->pre_destroy() per-se but the > >> retry behavior of it, so ->pre_destroy() will be converted to return > >> void and called once on rmdir and rmdir will proceed no matter what. > >> Also, with the deprecated behavior flag set, pre_destroy() doesn't > >> trigger the warning message. > >> > >> Other than that, if memcg people are fine with the change, I'll be > >> happy to route the changes through cgroup/for-3.5 and stack rmdir > >> simplification patches on top. > >> > > > > Any suggestion on how to take HugeTLB memcg extension patches [1] > > upstream. Current patch series I have is on top of cgroup/for-3.5 > > because I need cgroup_add_files equivalent and cgroup/for-3.5 have > > changes around that. So if these memcg patches can also go on top of > > cgroup/for-3.5 then I can continue to work on top of cgroup/for-3.5 ? I would suggest working on top of memcg-devel tree or on top linux-next. Just pull the required patch-es from cgroup/for-3.5 tree before your work (I can include that into memcg-devel tree for you if you want). Do you think this is a 3.5 material? I would rather wait some more. I didn't have time to look over it yet and there are still some unresolved issues so it sounds like too early for merging. > > Can HugeTLB memcg extension patches also go via this tree ? It > > should actually got via -mm. But then how do we take care of these > > dependencies ? You are not changing anything generic from cgroup so definitely go via Andrew. > I'm not in hurry. To be honest, I cannot update patches until the next Wednesday. > So, If changes of cgroup tree you required are included in linux-next. Please post > your updated ones. I thought your latest version was near to be merged.... > > How do you think, Michal ? > Please post (and ask Andrew to pull it.) I'll review when I can. I would wait with pulling the patch after the review. > I know yours and mine has some conflicts. I think my this series will > be onto your series. To do that, I hope your series are merged to > linux-next, 1st. > > > Thanks, > -Kame > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>