On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:03:37 +0200
Johannes Weiner [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:34:06PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:17:26 +0200
Johannes Weiner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

How about fixing interface first ? 1st version of this patch was 
in April and no big change since then.
I don't want to be starved more.

Back then I mentioned all my concerns and alternate suggestions.
Different from you, I explained and provided a reason for every single
counter I wanted to add, suggested a basic pattern for how to
interpret them to gain insight into memcg configurations and their
behaviour.  No reaction.  If you want to make progress, than don't
ignore concerns and arguments.  If my arguments are crap, then tell me
why and we can move on.

I think having percpu couneter has no performance benefit, just lose
extra memory by percpu allocation.
Anyway, you can change internal implemenatation when it's necessary.

But Ok, I agree using the same style as zone counters is better.

What we have now is not ready.  It wasn't discussed properly, which
certainly wasn't for the lack of interest in this change.  I just got
tired of raising the same points over and over again without answer.

The amount of time a change has been around is not an argument for it
to get merged.  On the other hand, the fact that it hasn't changed
since April *even though* the implementation was opposed back then
doesn't really speak for your way of getting this upstream, does it?

The fact is that you should revert the patch when it's merged to mmotm.

Please revert patch. And merge your own.
Anyway I don't have much interests in hierarchy.

Bye,
-Kame




--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>