From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9768C433F5 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 17:17:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 28E816B0073; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 23DB86B0075; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:17:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 12C756B0078; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:17:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0173.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.173]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049F76B0073 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 12:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BED886C7 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 17:17:39 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79120269438.16.AAEA21E Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by imf23.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB2D140007 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 17:17:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 18:17:35 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1644340657; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZnZWZNhs5o+4JIrFiRfBiatdlnub+aor48OWnJbqbV0=; b=CymkxE04oxx3Vqb3s56uVlf3f9DLLTymVburTR9hTaQLVjPWRDQRm4Yl8Vx575ctIQjhZw YtTb7yTKlTngkIpydJQMZq/byOer/cLp8FOYtGihKBmOdVR56mU5HojvjDmZVlXjQIp7Gh 3qwK2BEf/WtEHULr0f9hZZEgsCAlTEMu42yUikIPkTj37jrdKbtQSpJGNO24cpEBq7mACj Hh5H2CBmCT2E02gj0rLIwZtyb3HhpghKLCAqQ7vo63/SfflKkv+sYcYigLqjIWLYkdomp/ zTAF5Yrsel7rMBpk1tWCvRTqLNwpl/98moyDjt3UqCTgft6nYwFZdEt56yRbrQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1644340657; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZnZWZNhs5o+4JIrFiRfBiatdlnub+aor48OWnJbqbV0=; b=8qEQonLSxr1SCnJLKqM8ZxMFBLrXJjd7eFKJ7HlZr2xJ5R10+LM0X39bq7gU2p6RuwE14j 0AETUFKDpx+QMwDw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Vladimir Davydov , Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/memcg: Add a local_lock_t for IRQ and TASK object. Message-ID: References: <20220125164337.2071854-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20220125164337.2071854-4-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <7f4928b8-16e2-88b3-2688-1519a19653a9@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf23.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020 header.b=CymkxE04; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020e header.b=8qEQonLS; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass (imf23.hostedemail.com: domain of bigeasy@linutronix.de designates 193.142.43.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bigeasy@linutronix.de X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1BB2D140007 X-Stat-Signature: f5nc8tofrswe7ykorh1k1ashgit44s93 X-HE-Tag: 1644340658-967625 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2022-02-03 17:01:41 [+0100], Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > Let me know if a revert is preferred or you want to keep that so that I > > I see that's discussed in the subthread with Michal Hocko, so I would be > also leaning towards revert unless convincing numbers are provided. > > > can prepare the patches accordingly before posting. > > An acceptable form of this would have to basically replace the bool > stock_lock_acquried with two variants of the code paths that rely on it, > feel free to read though the previous occurence :) > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiJLqL2cUhJbvpyPQpkbVOu1rVSzgO2=S2jC55hneLtfQ@mail.gmail.com/ I did that locally already. I was referring to the revert. So repost with bool fixed and the revert will be discussed later or include the revert at the begin of the series and then rebase these patches on top of it? I probably don't get to it before FRI so I don't try to rush anyone here ;) Sebastian