On Tue 05-06-18 11:15:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see
> > > no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now
On Tue 05-06-18 11:15:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see
> > > no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see
> > no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now and start the discussion
> > from scratch.
>
> I do not
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see
> > no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now and start the discussion
> > from scratch.
>
> I do not
On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see
> no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now and start the discussion
> from scratch.
I do not think this is ready for the current merge window. Sorry! I
would really prefer
On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote:
[...]
> I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see
> no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now and start the discussion
> from scratch.
I do not think this is ready for the current merge window. Sorry! I
would really prefer
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:29:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 22-05-18 14:25:28, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > There are two cases when effective memory guarantee calculation
> > is mistakenly skipped:
> >
> > 1) If memcg is a child of the root cgroup, and the root
> > cgroup is not
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:29:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 22-05-18 14:25:28, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > There are two cases when effective memory guarantee calculation
> > is mistakenly skipped:
> >
> > 1) If memcg is a child of the root cgroup, and the root
> > cgroup is not
On Tue 22-05-18 14:25:28, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> There are two cases when effective memory guarantee calculation
> is mistakenly skipped:
>
> 1) If memcg is a child of the root cgroup, and the root
> cgroup is not root_mem_cgroup (in other words, if the reclaim
> is targeted). Top-level memory
On Tue 22-05-18 14:25:28, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> There are two cases when effective memory guarantee calculation
> is mistakenly skipped:
>
> 1) If memcg is a child of the root cgroup, and the root
> cgroup is not root_mem_cgroup (in other words, if the reclaim
> is targeted). Top-level memory
There are two cases when effective memory guarantee calculation
is mistakenly skipped:
1) If memcg is a child of the root cgroup, and the root
cgroup is not root_mem_cgroup (in other words, if the reclaim
is targeted). Top-level memory cgroups are handled specially
in mem_cgroup_protected(),
There are two cases when effective memory guarantee calculation
is mistakenly skipped:
1) If memcg is a child of the root cgroup, and the root
cgroup is not root_mem_cgroup (in other words, if the reclaim
is targeted). Top-level memory cgroups are handled specially
in mem_cgroup_protected(),
12 matches
Mail list logo
