(cc'ing Stephen, hi!)
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:30:58PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Andrew.
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 05:52:47PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > I would love to see this patchset go through cgroup tree. The changes to
> > > memcg is quite small,
> >
> > It seems logical to put this in the cgroup tree as that's where most of
> > the impact occurs.
>
> Cool, applying the changes to cgroup/for-3.13.
Stephen, Andrew, cgroup/for-3.13 will cause a minor conflict in
mm/memcontrol.c with the patch which reverts Michal's reclaim changes.
static void __mem_cgroup_free(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
int node;
size_t size = memcg_size();
<<<<<<< HEAD
=======
mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(memcg);
free_css_id(&mem_cgroup_subsys, &memcg->css);
>>>>>>> 1fa8f71dfa6e28c89afad7ac71dcb19b8c8da8b7
for_each_node(node)
free_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info(memcg, node);
It's a context conflict and just removing free_css_id() call resolves
it.
static void __mem_cgroup_free(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
int node;
size_t size = memcg_size();
mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(memcg);
for_each_node(node)
free_mem_cgroup_per_zone_info(memcg, node);
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>