Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:58:58 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: Scalability fixes -- 2.6.31 candidate? |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [2009-08-20 16:13:25]:
> 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. >
Yes, I was referring to those
> 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. >
Yes, there is some diffs that get picked up due to the soft_limit feature.
> 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. >
Fair enough.. I do have a backport to 2.6.31-rc5 mainline, but going the stable route would also work.
Thanks!
-- Balbir
| |