28.07.2012 01:54, J. Bruce Fields пишет:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:55:45PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
Bruce, I feel this patch set is ready for inclusion.
v2:
1) Rebase on Bruce's for-3.6 branch.
This patch set makes grace period and hosts reclaiming network namespace
aware.
On a
On 07/11/2012 11:41 PM, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
Gentlemen,
We are organizing containers mini-summit during next Linux Plumbers (San
Diego, August 29-31).
The idea is to gather and discuss everything relevant to namespaces,
cgroups, resource management,
checkpoint-restore and so on.
We are
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 02:00:41PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
On 07/25/2012 02:00 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Glauber Costa glom...@parallels.com writes:
On 07/12/2012 01:41 AM, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
Gentlemen,
We are organizing containers mini-summit during next Linux Plumbers (San
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:38:15PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
This patch creates a mechanism that skip memcg allocations during
certain pieces of our core code. It basically works in the same way
as preempt_disable()/preempt_enable(): By marking a region under
which all allocations will be
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:38:17PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
We are able to match a cache allocation to a particular memcg. If the
task doesn't change groups during the allocation itself - a rare event,
this will give us a good picture about who is the first group to touch a
cache page.
On 07/30/2012 04:58 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:38:17PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
We are able to match a cache allocation to a particular memcg. If the
task doesn't change groups during the allocation itself - a rare event,
this will give us a good picture about
On 07/30/2012 04:50 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:38:15PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
This patch creates a mechanism that skip memcg allocations during
certain pieces of our core code. It basically works in the same way
as preempt_disable()/preempt_enable(): By
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:12:05PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 15:57 +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
Without this patch kernel will panic on LockD start, because lockd_up()
checks
lockd_up_net() result for negative value.
From my pow it's better to return
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:40:37 -0400 J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:58:57PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
v3:
1) rebased on 3.5-rc3 kernel.
v2: destruction of currently processing transport added:
1) Added marking of currently processing
