On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:16:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 01:01:28 +0400 Andrew Vagin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 01:05:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 20:09:40 +0400 Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > >
> > > > struct memcg_cache_params has a
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 01:01:28 +0400 Andrew Vagin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 01:05:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 20:09:40 +0400 Andrey Vagin wrote:
> >
> > > struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union
> > > are used for root and non-root c
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 01:05:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 20:09:40 +0400 Andrey Vagin wrote:
>
> > struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union
> > are used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is
> > used only for non-root c
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 20:09:40 +0400 Andrey Vagin wrote:
> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union
> are used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is
> used only for non-root caches.
>
> I fixed the same problem in another place v3.9-rc1-16204-gf10
On 05/29/2013 06:48 AM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 05/29/2013 04:23 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:38:38 +0400 Andrey Vagin wrote:
>>
>>> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union are
>>> used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work i
On 05/29/2013 04:23 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:38:38 +0400 Andrey Vagin wrote:
>
>> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union are
>> used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is used only
>> for non-root caches.
>
> That unio
On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:38:38 +0400 Andrey Vagin wrote:
> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union are
> used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is used only
> for non-root caches.
That union is a bit dangerous. Perhaps it would be better to do
On Wed 22-05-13 11:56:38, Andrew Vagin wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:50:24PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > On 2013/5/22 15:40, Andrew Vagin wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 06:08:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Forgot to add
> > >> Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko
> > >> +
> > >> Cc:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:50:24PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/5/22 15:40, Andrew Vagin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 06:08:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >> Forgot to add
> >> Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko
> >> +
> >> Cc: stable # 3.9
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >
> > Who usually picks up s
On 2013/5/22 15:40, Andrew Vagin wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 06:08:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> Forgot to add
>> Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko
>> +
>> Cc: stable # 3.9
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Who usually picks up such patches?
The famous AKPM.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 06:08:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> Forgot to add
> Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko
> +
> Cc: stable # 3.9
>
> Thanks
Who usually picks up such patches?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.
On Tue 14-05-13 16:38:38, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union are
> used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is used only
> for non-root caches.
>
> [ 115.096202] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 000fff
On Tue 14-05-13 18:49:07, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 14-05-13 16:40:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Tue 14-05-13 16:38:38, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> >>> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union are
> >>> used for root and no
On 05/14/2013 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 14-05-13 16:40:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Tue 14-05-13 16:38:38, Andrey Vagin wrote:
>>> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union are
>>> used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is used only
>
On Tue 14-05-13 16:40:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 14-05-13 16:38:38, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> > struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union are
> > used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is used only
> > for non-root caches.
>
> but memcg_update_c
On Tue 14-05-13 16:38:38, Andrey Vagin wrote:
> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union are
> used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is used only
> for non-root caches.
but memcg_update_cache_size is called only for !root caches AFAICS
(check me
16 matches
Mail list logo
