ank you!
Roman
--
>From a0a07f65a38105562bf424d7dc072a2bc4f1569e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Roman Gushchin <g...@fb.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:26:57 +
Subject: [PATCH net] Revert "defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()"
This patch effectively reverts commit 9f1c2
; > Technically it's not a true revert, but you're totally right.
> > Let me add a note to the commit description.
> >
> > Are you ok with the rest?
>
> Sure !
>
> Thanks.
Hello, David!
Can you, please, pull the patch below?
It should be applied for 4.14+.
T
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 19:04 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:39:04AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 18:06 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > >
> > > Idk, how even we can hit it? And if so, what scary will happen?
> > >
> > > If you prefer to have it
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 19:04 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:39:04AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 18:06 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > >
> > > Idk, how even we can hit it? And if so, what scary will happen?
> > >
> > > If you prefer to have it
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:39:04AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 18:06 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> > Idk, how even we can hit it? And if so, what scary will happen?
> >
> > If you prefer to have it there, I definitely can return it,
> > but I see no profit so far.
>
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:39:04AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 18:06 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >
> > Idk, how even we can hit it? And if so, what scary will happen?
> >
> > If you prefer to have it there, I definitely can return it,
> > but I see no profit so far.
>
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 18:06 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> Idk, how even we can hit it? And if so, what scary will happen?
>
> If you prefer to have it there, I definitely can return it,
> but I see no profit so far.
I was simply curious this was not mentioned in the changelog.
A revert is
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 18:06 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> Idk, how even we can hit it? And if so, what scary will happen?
>
> If you prefer to have it there, I definitely can return it,
> but I see no profit so far.
I was simply curious this was not mentioned in the changelog.
A revert is
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 09:59:27AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 16:57 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > This patch effectively reverts commit 9f1c2674b328 ("net: memcontrol:
> > defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()").
> >
> > Moving mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() to the
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 09:59:27AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 16:57 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > This patch effectively reverts commit 9f1c2674b328 ("net: memcontrol:
> > defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()").
> >
> > Moving mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() to the
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 16:57 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> This patch effectively reverts commit 9f1c2674b328 ("net: memcontrol:
> defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()").
>
> Moving mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() to the inet_csk_accept() completely breaks
> memcg socket memory accounting, as packets
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 16:57 +, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> This patch effectively reverts commit 9f1c2674b328 ("net: memcontrol:
> defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()").
>
> Moving mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() to the inet_csk_accept() completely breaks
> memcg socket memory accounting, as packets
This patch effectively reverts commit 9f1c2674b328 ("net: memcontrol:
defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()").
Moving mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() to the inet_csk_accept() completely breaks
memcg socket memory accounting, as packets received before memcg
pointer initialization are not accounted and are
This patch effectively reverts commit 9f1c2674b328 ("net: memcontrol:
defer call to mem_cgroup_sk_alloc()").
Moving mem_cgroup_sk_alloc() to the inet_csk_accept() completely breaks
memcg socket memory accounting, as packets received before memcg
pointer initialization are not accounted and are
14 matches
Mail list logo
