(cc'ing Stephen, hi!)
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:30:58PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Andrew.
>
> 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.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
