From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559F26B0088 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d23relay01.au.ibm.com (d23relay01.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.243]) by e23smtp03.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7LFKLHv014430 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:20:21 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay01.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n7L5T9pO528636 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:31:59 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n7L5T8DJ031929 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:29:09 +1000 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:58:58 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate? Message-ID: <20090821052858.GB29572@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090820190941.GA29572@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090820161325.562b255e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090820161325.562b255e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton 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: * Andrew Morton [2009-08-20 16:13:25]: > 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. > Yes, I was referring to those > 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. > Yes, there is some diffs that get picked up due to the soft_limit feature. > 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. > Fair enough.. I do have a backport to 2.6.31-rc5 mainline, but going the stable route would also work. Thanks! -- Balbir -- 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