On Sun 11-01-15 15:55:43, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> From d527ba1dbfdb58e1f7c7c4ee12b32ef2e5461990 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Johannes Weiner
> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:29:05 -0500
> Subject: [patch] mm: memcontrol: zap outstanding cache/swap references during
> unbind
>
> Cgroup core
On Sat 10-01-15 16:43:16, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, if a hierarchy doesn't have any live children when it's
> unmounted, the hierarchy starts dying by killing its refcnt. The
> expectation is that even if there are lingering dead children which
> are lingering due to remaining references,
On Sun 11-01-15 15:55:43, Johannes Weiner wrote:
From d527ba1dbfdb58e1f7c7c4ee12b32ef2e5461990 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Johannes Weiner han...@cmpxchg.org
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:29:05 -0500
Subject: [patch] mm: memcontrol: zap outstanding cache/swap references during
unbind
On Sat 10-01-15 16:43:16, Tejun Heo wrote:
Currently, if a hierarchy doesn't have any live children when it's
unmounted, the hierarchy starts dying by killing its refcnt. The
expectation is that even if there are lingering dead children which
are lingering due to remaining references, they'll
On 11/01/15 20:55, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:43:16PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Currently, if a hierarchy doesn't have any live children when it's
unmounted, the hierarchy starts dying by killing its refcnt. The
expectation is that even if there are lingering dead children
On 11/01/15 20:55, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:43:16PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Currently, if a hierarchy doesn't have any live children when it's
unmounted, the hierarchy starts dying by killing its refcnt. The
expectation is that even if there are lingering dead children
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 03:59:56PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> I haven't dug deep into the cgroup core, but may be we could detach the
> old root in cgroup_kill_sb() and leave it dangling until the last
> reference to it has gone?
The root isn't the problem here. Individual controllers are
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 06:28:45AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:01:14AM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > Come to think of it, I wonder how many users actually want to mount
> > different controllers subset after unmount. Because we could allow
>
> It wouldn't be a common
Hello, Vladimir.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:01:14AM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Come to think of it, I wonder how many users actually want to mount
> different controllers subset after unmount. Because we could allow
It wouldn't be a common use case but, on the face of it, we still
support
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 03:55:43PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:43:16PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > May be, we should kill the ref counter to the memory controller root in
> > > cgroup_kill_sb only if there is no children at all, neither online nor
> > > offline.
>
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 03:55:43PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:43:16PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
May be, we should kill the ref counter to the memory controller root in
cgroup_kill_sb only if there is no children at all, neither online nor
offline.
Ah,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 03:59:56PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
I haven't dug deep into the cgroup core, but may be we could detach the
old root in cgroup_kill_sb() and leave it dangling until the last
reference to it has gone?
The root isn't the problem here. Individual controllers are as
Hello, Vladimir.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:01:14AM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
Come to think of it, I wonder how many users actually want to mount
different controllers subset after unmount. Because we could allow
It wouldn't be a common use case but, on the face of it, we still
support
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 06:28:45AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:01:14AM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
Come to think of it, I wonder how many users actually want to mount
different controllers subset after unmount. Because we could allow
It wouldn't be a common use
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:43:16PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, if a hierarchy doesn't have any live children when it's
> unmounted, the hierarchy starts dying by killing its refcnt. The
> expectation is that even if there are lingering dead children which
> are lingering due to remaining
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 04:43:16PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Currently, if a hierarchy doesn't have any live children when it's
unmounted, the hierarchy starts dying by killing its refcnt. The
expectation is that even if there are lingering dead children which
are lingering due to remaining
Currently, if a hierarchy doesn't have any live children when it's
unmounted, the hierarchy starts dying by killing its refcnt. The
expectation is that even if there are lingering dead children which
are lingering due to remaining references, they'll be put in a finite
amount of time. When the
Currently, if a hierarchy doesn't have any live children when it's
unmounted, the hierarchy starts dying by killing its refcnt. The
expectation is that even if there are lingering dead children which
are lingering due to remaining references, they'll be put in a finite
amount of time. When the
18 matches
Mail list logo
