From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671756B005D for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id n7LFIIm4001931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:18:20 -0700 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:13:25 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate? Message-Id: <20090820161325.562b255e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090820190941.GA29572@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090820190941.GA29572@balbir.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, prarit@redhat.com, andi.kleen@intel.com, m-kosaki@ceres.dti.ne.jp, dmiyakawa@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu List-ID: On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:39:42 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > Hi, Andrew, > > I've been wondering if the scalability fixes for root overhead in > memory cgroup is a candidate for 2.6.31? These? memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability-checkpatch-fixes.patch memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability-v5.patch > They don't change > functionality but help immensely using existing accounting features. > > Opening up the email for more debate and discussion and thoughts. > They don't apply terribly well to mainline: patching file mm/memcontrol.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 70. Hunk #2 FAILED at 479. Hunk #3 FAILED at 1295. Hunk #4 FAILED at 1359. Hunk #5 FAILED at 1432. Hunk #6 FAILED at 1514. Hunk #7 FAILED at 1534. Hunk #8 FAILED at 1605. Hunk #9 FAILED at 1798. Hunk #10 FAILED at 1826. Hunk #11 FAILED at 1883. Hunk #12 FAILED at 1981. Hunk #13 succeeded at 2091 (offset -405 lines). 12 out of 13 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file mm/memcontrol.c.rej Failed to apply memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability so maybe you're referring to these: memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup.patch memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup-fix.patch memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup-fix-2.patch as well. But then memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch still doesn't apply. Maybe memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch depends on memory-controller-soft-limit-*.patch too. I stopped looking. It's a lot of material and a lot of churn. I'd be more inclined to proceed with a 2.6.32 merge and then perhaps you can see if you can come up with a minimal patchset for -stable, see if the -stable maintainers can be talked into merging it. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org