On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 12:43 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > * Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> [2011-05-23 00:10:13]: > > > On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 17:35 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > * maximilian attems <maks@debian.org> [2011-05-12 11:53:25]: > > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +0000, maximilian attems wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +0000, maximilian attems wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > > > > <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, Ben, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory > > > > > > > > cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there > > > > > > > > are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more > > > > > > > > interesting changes on the way as well. > > > > > > > > > > could you point to the relevant commits? > > > > > > > > so unless this information comes along soon, > > > > I'll revert my change. > > > > > > > > > > I sent some information earlier, I hope it was useful. BTW, I don't > > > see memory cgroups enabled in debian experimental (changelog), should I be looking > > > elsewhere? > > > > They're enabled in 2.6.39-1 (in sid). However, I actually meant them to > > be disabled by default, and that will be done in 2.6.39-2. > > > > Oops, but why do you want to disable them by default? Other distros > have them enabled, disabled implies more boot options required, lesser > testing of the feature and feedback. Is there a strong reason to > change it? Yes, because it currently (2.6.39) requires extra page tables that take time and memory. I understand this is supposed to change soon, and we can reconsider then. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part