From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752252AbbKKIMR (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 03:12:17 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:35902 "EHLO mail-wm0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751238AbbKKIMP (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 03:12:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:12:12 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Greg Thelen , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy Message-ID: <20151111081212.GA1424@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20151109140832.GE8916@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151109182840.GJ31308@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151109182840.GJ31308@esperanza> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 09-11-15 21:28:40, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > Vladimir Davydov (5): > > > Revert "kernfs: do not account ino_ida allocations to memcg" > > > Revert "gfp: add __GFP_NOACCOUNT" > > > > The patch ordering would break the bisectability. I would simply squash > > How's that? AFAICS the kernel should compile after any first N=1..5 > patches of the series applied. Sorry, forgot to comment on this. I didn't mean it would break compilation. It would just reintroduce the bug fixed by "kernfs: do not account ino_ida allocations to memcg". My understanding is that the bug is quite unlikely and it will results in a pinned memcg which is much less serious than a crash or other misbehavior. I will leave whether this is serious enough to you but as the revert is basically dropping the flag which can be trivially done in the patch which renames it and changes its semantic I do not think splitting has any large advantage. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB74D6B0253 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 03:12:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so35805808wme.1 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:12:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com. [74.125.82.46]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p15si11176899wmd.25.2015.11.11.00.12.14 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:12:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so44223304wmv.1 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:12:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:12:12 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy Message-ID: <20151111081212.GA1424@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20151109140832.GE8916@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151109182840.GJ31308@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151109182840.GJ31308@esperanza> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Greg Thelen , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 09-11-15 21:28:40, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > Vladimir Davydov (5): > > > Revert "kernfs: do not account ino_ida allocations to memcg" > > > Revert "gfp: add __GFP_NOACCOUNT" > > > > The patch ordering would break the bisectability. I would simply squash > > How's that? AFAICS the kernel should compile after any first N=1..5 > patches of the series applied. Sorry, forgot to comment on this. I didn't mean it would break compilation. It would just reintroduce the bug fixed by "kernfs: do not account ino_ida allocations to memcg". My understanding is that the bug is quite unlikely and it will results in a pinned memcg which is much less serious than a crash or other misbehavior. I will leave whether this is serious enough to you but as the revert is basically dropping the flag which can be trivially done in the patch which renames it and changes its semantic I do not think splitting has any large advantage. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] memcg/kmem: switch to white list policy Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:12:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20151111081212.GA1424@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20151109140832.GE8916@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151109182840.GJ31308@esperanza> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151109182840.GJ31308@esperanza> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Greg Thelen , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Mon 09-11-15 21:28:40, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > > Vladimir Davydov (5): > > > Revert "kernfs: do not account ino_ida allocations to memcg" > > > Revert "gfp: add __GFP_NOACCOUNT" > > > > The patch ordering would break the bisectability. I would simply squash > > How's that? AFAICS the kernel should compile after any first N=1..5 > patches of the series applied. Sorry, forgot to comment on this. I didn't mean it would break compilation. It would just reintroduce the bug fixed by "kernfs: do not account ino_ida allocations to memcg". My understanding is that the bug is quite unlikely and it will results in a pinned memcg which is much less serious than a crash or other misbehavior. I will leave whether this is serious enough to you but as the revert is basically dropping the flag which can be trivially done in the patch which renames it and changes its semantic I do not think splitting has any large advantage. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs