Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:30:59 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.26 (memcgroup) |
| |
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:51:30 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote: > > disable-the-memory-controller-by-default-v3.patch > > disable-the-memory-controller-by-default-v3-fix.patch > > If those are to go in, then the sooner the better, yes. > > But though I argued for cgroup_disable=memory (or some such), > I think myself that taking it even further now (requiring an > additional cgroup_enable=memory at boottime to get the memcg > stuff you chose with CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR=y at build time) is > confusing overkill, just messing around. > > Others think differently. A compromise would be to improve the > helptext for CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR (some of it is presently nonsense, > isn't it? Certainly there's a significant overhead, but it's the > 32-bit struct page not the 64-bit which then suffers from crossing > cacheline boundaries). Not much point in mentioning > cgroup_disable=memory if those patches go in, but needs to say > cgroup_enable=memory bootoption also needed. > My concern around this is "default" action of cgroups may be different from each otther. It's confusing...
> > memcgroup-check-and-initialize-page-cgroup-in-memmap_init_zone.patch > > No, it was a good find from Shi, but you were right to think the patch > fishy, and Kame put in lots of work (thank you!) to identify the actual > culprit: he and Mel are discussing what the actual fix should be; and > we might want to choose a different fix for stable than for 2.6.26. > > I think you should drop that memmap_init_zone patch: the cgroup > pointer is not the only field we assume is zeroed, both flags and > mapping can cause trouble if they were not originally zeroed. > Re-zero the whole struct page? No, far better to fix the > root of the corruption, that Kame and Mel are working on. > I'll test and repodt Mel's patch later. I think Shi's patch will be unnecessary.
Thanks, -Kame
| |