From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx184.postini.com [74.125.245.184]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C18BF6B0005 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:18:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:18:54 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific locking Message-ID: <20130125101854.GC8876@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1358862461-18046-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <510258D0.6060407@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <510258D0.6060407@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Lord Glauber Costa of Sealand Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com On Fri 25-01-13 14:05:04, Glauber Costa wrote: [...] > > Glauber Costa (6): > > memcg: prevent changes to move_charge_at_immigrate during task attach > > memcg: split part of memcg creation to css_online > > memcg: fast hierarchy-aware child test. > > memcg: replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific memcg_lock > > memcg: increment static branch right after limit set. > > memcg: avoid dangling reference count in creation failure. > > > > Tejun, > > This applies ontop of your cpuset patches. Would you pick this (would be > my choice), or would you rather have it routed through somewhere mmish ? I would vote to -mm. Or is there any specific reason to have it in cgroup tree? It doesn't touch any cgroup core parts, does it? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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