On 02/06/2014 07:29 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 06-02-14 18:15:50, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>> On 02/06/2014 06:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 04-02-14 19:27:19, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>>> [...]
What does this patch change? Actually, it introduces no functional
changes - it on
On Thu 06-02-14 18:15:50, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On 02/06/2014 06:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 04-02-14 19:27:19, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > [...]
> >> What does this patch change? Actually, it introduces no functional
> >> changes - it only remove the code trying to find an alias for
On 02/06/2014 06:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-02-14 19:27:19, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> [...]
>> What does this patch change? Actually, it introduces no functional
>> changes - it only remove the code trying to find an alias for a memcg
>> cache, because it will fail anyway. So this is ra
On Tue 04-02-14 19:27:19, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
[...]
> What does this patch change? Actually, it introduces no functional
> changes - it only remove the code trying to find an alias for a memcg
> cache, because it will fail anyway. So this is rather a cleanup.
But this also means that two diffe
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 07:43 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Vladimir Davydov
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2014 07:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 04-02-14 18:59:23, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:52 PM
On 02/04/2014 07:43 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Vladimir Davydov
> wrote:
>> On 02/04/2014 07:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 04-02-14 18:59:23, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 02-02-14 20:33:48, Vladimir D
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 07:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Tue 04-02-14 18:59:23, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2014 06:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 02-02-14 20:33:48, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Suppose we are creating memcg cach
On 02/04/2014 07:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-02-14 18:59:23, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>> On 02/04/2014 06:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Sun 02-02-14 20:33:48, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
Suppose we are creating memcg cache A that could be merged with cache B
of the same memcg. S
On Tue 04-02-14 18:59:23, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sun 02-02-14 20:33:48, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> >> Suppose we are creating memcg cache A that could be merged with cache B
> >> of the same memcg. Since any memcg cache has the same parameters as
On Sun 02-02-14 20:33:48, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Suppose we are creating memcg cache A that could be merged with cache B
> of the same memcg. Since any memcg cache has the same parameters as its
> parent cache, parent caches PA and PB of memcg caches A and B must be
> mergeable too. That means P
On 02/04/2014 06:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 02-02-14 20:33:48, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>> Suppose we are creating memcg cache A that could be merged with cache B
>> of the same memcg. Since any memcg cache has the same parameters as its
>> parent cache, parent caches PA and PB of memcg cac
Suppose we are creating memcg cache A that could be merged with cache B
of the same memcg. Since any memcg cache has the same parameters as its
parent cache, parent caches PA and PB of memcg caches A and B must be
mergeable too. That means PA was merged with PB on creation or vice
versa, i.e. PA =
12 matches
Mail list logo
