On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Not that your implementation is bad or anything but the patch itself
> somehow makes me cringe a bit. It's probably just because it has to
> add to the already overly complicated offline path. Guaranteeing
> strict offline ordering might be a good idea
Hello, Hugh.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:06:26PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Sometimes the cleanup after memcg hierarchy testing gets stuck in
> mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(), unable to bring non-kmem usage down to 0.
>
> There may turn out to be several causes, but a major cause is this: the
>
Sometimes the cleanup after memcg hierarchy testing gets stuck in
mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(), unable to bring non-kmem usage down to 0.
There may turn out to be several causes, but a major cause is this: the
workitem to offline parent can get run before workitem to offline child;
parent's
Sometimes the cleanup after memcg hierarchy testing gets stuck in
mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(), unable to bring non-kmem usage down to 0.
There may turn out to be several causes, but a major cause is this: the
workitem to offline parent can get run before workitem to offline child;
parent's
Hello, Hugh.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:06:26PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Sometimes the cleanup after memcg hierarchy testing gets stuck in
mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(), unable to bring non-kmem usage down to 0.
There may turn out to be several causes, but a major cause is this: the
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
Not that your implementation is bad or anything but the patch itself
somehow makes me cringe a bit. It's probably just because it has to
add to the already overly complicated offline path. Guaranteeing
strict offline ordering might be a good idea but
6 matches
Mail list logo
