Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:13:25 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate? |
| |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:39:42 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi, Andrew, > > I've been wondering if the scalability fixes for root overhead in > memory cgroup is a candidate for 2.6.31?
These?
memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability-checkpatch-fixes.patch memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability-v5.patch
> They don't change > functionality but help immensely using existing accounting features. > > Opening up the email for more debate and discussion and thoughts. >
They don't apply terribly well to mainline:
patching file mm/memcontrol.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 70. Hunk #2 FAILED at 479. Hunk #3 FAILED at 1295. Hunk #4 FAILED at 1359. Hunk #5 FAILED at 1432. Hunk #6 FAILED at 1514. Hunk #7 FAILED at 1534. Hunk #8 FAILED at 1605. Hunk #9 FAILED at 1798. Hunk #10 FAILED at 1826. Hunk #11 FAILED at 1883. Hunk #12 FAILED at 1981. Hunk #13 succeeded at 2091 (offset -405 lines). 12 out of 13 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file mm/memcontrol.c.rej Failed to apply memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability
so maybe you're referring to these:
memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup.patch memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup-fix.patch memcg-remove-the-overhead-associated-with-the-root-cgroup-fix-2.patch
as well.
But then memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch still doesn't apply. Maybe memcg-improve-resource-counter-scalability.patch depends on memory-controller-soft-limit-*.patch too. I stopped looking.
It's a lot of material and a lot of churn. I'd be more inclined to proceed with a 2.6.32 merge and then perhaps you can see if you can come up with a minimal patchset for -stable, see if the -stable maintainers can be talked into merging it.
| |