Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/memcg: make memory.reclaim interface generic

[Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 04:56:04PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2025, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:17:09 -0700 Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:58:49AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +int user_proactive_reclaim(char *buf, struct mem_cgroup *memcg, pg_data_t *pgdat)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	unsigned int nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
> > > > +	unsigned long nr_to_reclaim, nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > > > +	int swappiness = -1;
> > > > +	char *old_buf, *start;
> > > > +	substring_t args[MAX_OPT_ARGS];
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!buf || (!memcg && !pgdat))
> > > 
> > > I don't think this series is adding a use-case where both memcg and
> > > pgdat are non-NULL, so let's error out on that as well.
> > 
> > As a followup, please.  This has been in -next for four weeks and I'd
> > prefer not to have to route around it (again).
> > 
> 
> From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:53:24 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] mm-introduce-per-node-proactive-reclaim-interface-fix
> 
> Both memcg and node is also a bogus case, per Shakeel.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>

With this, I think we are good. We can always refactor and move code
around to our taste but interface and functionality wise this is fine.

Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>