On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Changes since 20130703:
>>>
>>> The net-next tree lost its build failure.
>>>
>>> The akpm tree gained a conflict against the kbuild tree and lost lots of
>>> patches that turned up elsewhere.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> Just FYI:
>> People building with "CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM=n" (still) need an extra patch
>> pending in mmots-tree [1].
>> ( Unfortunately, it does not cleanly apply against next-20130704. )
>>
>
> I have compared both mm/memcontrol.c files from
> next-20130703/next-20130704 - they are identical.
>
> These hunks...
>
> [ From Li Zefan ]
> @@ -6332,8 +6341,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_free(struct cgroup *cont)
> {
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont);
>
> - mem_cgroup_sockets_destroy(memcg);
> -
> + memcg_destroy_kmem(memcg);
> __mem_cgroup_free(memcg);
> }
>
> [ From mmots ]
> @@ -6399,8 +6408,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_free(struct c
> {
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont);
>
> - mem_cgroup_sockets_destroy(memcg);
> -
> + memcg_destroy_kmem(memcg);
> mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> }
>
> ...seems to differ.
>
> In both mentioned -next releases there exist no mem_cgroup_put() in
> mm/memcontrol.c.
> So the hunk in mmots seems to be wrong in my eyes.
>
> Andrew? ^^^
>
Attached v2 patch applies against next-20130704.
- Sedat -
> - Sedat -
>
>> - Sedat -
>>
>> [1] http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/memcg-use-css_get-put-when-charging-uncharging-kmem-fix-fix.patch
Attachment:
memcg-use-css_get-put-when-charging-uncharging-kmem-fix-fix-v2.patch
Description: Binary data
