Hi Tejun,
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:52:11 -0400 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> (cc'ing Stephen, hi!)
Hi :-)
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:30:58PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > 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 for the heads up, I guess I'll see that tomorrow.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpquhglBfVTF.pgp
Description: PGP signature