On Mon 29-10-12 16:26:02, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
>
> > Tejun is planning to build on top of that and make some more cleanups
> > in the cgroup core (namely get rid of of the whole retry code in
> > cgroup_rmdir).
>
> I applied 1-3 to the following branch which is based on top of v3.6.
Hello, Michal.
> Tejun is planning to build on top of that and make some more cleanups
> in the cgroup core (namely get rid of of the whole retry code in
> cgroup_rmdir).
I applied 1-3 to the following branch which is based on top of v3.6.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgrou
Hi,
memcg is the only controller which might fail in its pre_destroy
callback which makes the cgroup core more complicated for no good
reason. This is an attempt to change this unfortunate state.
I have previously posted this as an RFC https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/17/246
and the feedback was most
(2012/10/17 22:30), Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> memcg is the only controller which might fail in its pre_destroy
> callback which makes the cgroup core more complicated for no good
> reason. This is an attempt to change this unfortunate state.
>
> I am sending this a RFC because I would like to he
On 10/17/2012 05:30 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> memcg is the only controller which might fail in its pre_destroy
> callback which makes the cgroup core more complicated for no good
> reason. This is an attempt to change this unfortunate state.
>
> I am sending this a RFC because I would like
Hi,
memcg is the only controller which might fail in its pre_destroy
callback which makes the cgroup core more complicated for no good
reason. This is an attempt to change this unfortunate state.
I am sending this a RFC because I would like to hear back whether the
approach is correct. I thought
6 matches
Mail list logo
