From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f200.google.com (mail-wr0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076F96B0003 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 10:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f200.google.com with SMTP id g9-v6so1096597wrq.7 for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 07:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de. [2a01:7a0:2:106d:700::1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z14-v6si1124798wru.344.2018.07.03.07.52.44 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Jul 2018 07:52:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 16:52:31 +0200 Message-Id: <20180703145235.28050-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <20180624200907.ufjxk6l2biz6xcm2@esperanza> References: <20180624200907.ufjxk6l2biz6xcm2@esperanza> Reply-To: "[PATCH 0/4]"@kvack.org, "mm/list_lru:add"@kvack.org, list_lru_shrink_walk_irq@kvack.org, and@kvack.org (), use@kvack.org, it@kvack.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Andrew Morton My intepretation of situtation is that Vladimir Davydon is fine patch #1 and #2 of the series [0] but dislikes the irq argument and struct member. It has been suggested to use list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() instead the approach I went on in "mm: list_lru: Add lock_irq member to __list_lru_init()". This series is based on the former two patches and introduces list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() (and makes the third patch of series obsolete). In patch 1-3 I tried a tiny cleanup so the different locking (spin_lock() vs spin_lock_irq()) is simply lifted to the caller of the function. [0] The patch mm: workingset: remove local_irq_disable() from count_shadow_nodes()= =20 and mm: workingset: make shadow_lru_isolate() use locking suffix Sebastian