[Devel] Re: [RFC] [-mm PATCH] Memory controller fix swap charging context in unuse_pte()

2007-10-25 Thread Balbir Singh
Hugh Dickins wrote: > Gosh, it's nothing special. Appended below, but please don't shame > me by taking it too seriously. Defaults to working on a 600M mmap > because I'm in the habit of booting mem=512M. You probably have > something better yourself that you'd rather use. > Thanks for sending

[Devel] Q: How complete is the pid namespace in mainline

2007-10-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Guys how complete do you fee the pid namespace support is that has been merged into Linus's tree? My impression until I started reading through code earlier today was that the support was just about done except for a couple of tricky details. Eric __

[Devel] Re: [PATCH] Move cgroups destroy() callbacks to cgroup_diput()

2007-10-25 Thread Paul Jackson
Paul M wrote: > -LL=cgroup_mutex > +(cgroup_mutex held by caller) Thanks. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401 ___ Con

[Devel] [PATCH] Move cgroups destroy() callbacks to cgroup_diput()

2007-10-25 Thread Paul Menage
Move cgroups destroy() callbacks to cgroup_diput() Move the calls to the cgroup subsystem destroy() methods from cgroup_rmdir() to cgroup_diput(). This allows control file reads and writes to access their subsystem state without having to be concerned with locking against cgroup destruction - th

[Devel] Re: [PATCH 2/2] CFS CGroup: Report usage

2007-10-25 Thread Paul Menage
On 10/23/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > agreed, we need to be reporting idle time in (milli)seconds, although > the requirement we had was to report it back in percentage. I guess the > percentage figure can be derived from the raw idle time number. > > How about: > >

[Devel] Re: [RFC] [-mm PATCH] Memory controller fix swap charging context in unuse_pte()

2007-10-25 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote: > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > Thanks, Balbir. Sorry for the delay. I've not forgotten our > > agreement that I should be splitting it into before-and-after > > mem cgroup patches. But it's low priority for me until we're > > genuinely assigning to a cgro

[Devel] Re: [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n

2007-10-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Eric W. Biederman wrote: Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "in

[Devel] Re: [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n

2007-10-25 Thread Denis V. Lunev
Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Denis V. Lunev wrote: > The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "init" should be > called only once without NETNS. Per

[Devel] Re: [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n

2007-10-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Denis V. Lunev wrote: The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "init" should be called only once without NETNS. Period. No need for any lists. >>> Th

[Devel] Re: [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n

2007-10-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "init" should be >> called only once without NETNS. Period. No need for any lists. > > This is the kind of idea I had but I didn't think it could be > that simple. :) > T

[Devel] Re: [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n

2007-10-25 Thread Benjamin Thery
Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Benjamin Thery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>> The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "init" should be >>> called only once without NETNS. Period. No need for any lists. >> This is the kind of idea I had but I didn't think it c

[Devel] Re: [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n

2007-10-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Denis V. Lunev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "init" should be > called only once without NETNS. Period. No need for any lists. > > I'll resend it to Dave after the ACK. First in the case of the code that is currently merged none of the __

[Devel] Re: [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n

2007-10-25 Thread Benjamin Thery
Denis V. Lunev wrote: > The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "init" should be > called only once without NETNS. Period. No need for any lists. This is the kind of idea I had but I didn't think it could be that simple. :) Thanks Denis. > I'll resend it to Dave after the ACK.

Re: [Devel] Re: [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n (resend, was wrong patch)

2007-10-25 Thread Denis V. Lunev
Denis V. Lunev wrote: > The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "init" should be > called only once without NETNS. Period. No need for any lists. > > I'll resend it to Dave after the ACK. > > Regards, > Den > > Benjamin Thery wrote: >> Hello Pavel, >> >> I've found a proble

[Devel] Re: [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n

2007-10-25 Thread Denis V. Lunev
The patch attached should help. The idea is simple. The "init" should be called only once without NETNS. Period. No need for any lists. I'll resend it to Dave after the ACK. Regards, Den Benjamin Thery wrote: > Hello Pavel, > > I've found a problem with one of your patch related to netn

[Devel] [NETNS] Oops in register_pernet_operations() with CONFIG_NET_NS=n

2007-10-25 Thread Benjamin Thery
Hello Pavel, I've found a problem with one of your patch related to netns: * [NETNS] Move some code into __init section when CONFIG_NET_NS=n (v2) http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg43310.html This patch introduces the __net_init/__net_exit/__net_initdata defines to save some memory when C