On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:57:40AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
[snip]
Without your mem_cgroup mods in mm/swap_state.c, unuse_pte makes
the right assignments (I believe). But I find that swapout (using
600M in a 512M
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:57:40AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
[snip]
Without your mem_cgroup mods in mm/swap_state.c, unuse_pte makes
the right assignments (I believe). But I find that swapout (using
600M
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:57:40AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
[snip]
Without your mem_cgroup mods in mm/swap_state.c, unuse_pte makes
the right assignments (I believe). But I find that swapout (using
600M in a 512M machine) from a 200M cgroup quickly OOMs, whereas
it
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 it.
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 cgroup there.
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
--- 2.6.23-rc8-mm2/mm/swapfile.c2007-09-27 12:03:36.0 +0100
+++ linux/mm/swapfile.c 2007-10-07 14:33:05.0 +0100
@@ -507,11 +507,23 @@ unsigned int count_swap_pages(int type,
* just let do_wp_page
Hugh Dickins wrote:
--- 2.6.23-rc8-mm2/mm/swapfile.c 2007-09-27 12:03:36.0 +0100
+++ linux/mm/swapfile.c 2007-10-07 14:33:05.0 +0100
@@ -507,11 +507,23 @@ unsigned int count_swap_pages(int type,
* just let do_wp_page work it out if a write is requested later -
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Found-by: Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mem_cgroup_charge() in unuse_pte() is called under a lock, the pte_lock.
That's
clearly incorrect, since we pass GFP_KERNEL to mem_cgroup_charge() for
allocation of page_cgroup.
This patch release the
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Found-by: Hugh Dickins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mem_cgroup_charge() in unuse_pte() is called under a lock, the pte_lock.
That's
clearly incorrect, since we pass GFP_KERNEL to mem_cgroup_charge() for
allocation of page_cgroup.
This
