linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the percpu tree

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the percpu tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1737 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:

  mm/memcontrol.c

between commit:

  0f0cace35fa6 ("mm, memcg: mark cgroup_memory_nosocket, nokmem and noswap as __ro_after_init")

from the percpu tree and commits:

  dfe14954c6e4 ("mm: memcg/slab: don't create kmalloc-cg caches with cgroup.memory=nokmem")
  3fd971b13287 ("mm-memcg-slab-create-a-new-set-of-kmalloc-cg-n-caches-v5")
  53270d6d0c1f ("mm-memcg-slab-create-a-new-set-of-kmalloc-cg-n-caches-v5-fix")

from the akpm-current tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

Andrew, you may want to look at commit

  4d5c8aedc8aa ("mm, memcg: introduce mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled()")

from the percpu tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc mm/memcontrol.c
index 3c1641c67122,b9a6db6a7d4f..000000000000
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@@ -80,10 -80,10 +80,10 @@@ struct mem_cgroup *root_mem_cgroup __re
  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mem_cgroup *, int_active_memcg);
  
  /* Socket memory accounting disabled? */
 -static bool cgroup_memory_nosocket;
 +static bool cgroup_memory_nosocket __ro_after_init;
  
  /* Kernel memory accounting disabled? */
- static bool cgroup_memory_nokmem __ro_after_init;
 -bool cgroup_memory_nokmem;
++bool cgroup_memory_nokmem __ro_after_init;
  
  /* Whether the swap controller is active */
  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_SWAP

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the percpu tree

[Roman Gushchin]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 06:33:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/memcontrol.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0f0cace35fa6 ("mm, memcg: mark cgroup_memory_nosocket, nokmem and noswap as __ro_after_init")
> 
> from the percpu tree and commits:
> 
>   dfe14954c6e4 ("mm: memcg/slab: don't create kmalloc-cg caches with cgroup.memory=nokmem")
>   3fd971b13287 ("mm-memcg-slab-create-a-new-set-of-kmalloc-cg-n-caches-v5")
>   53270d6d0c1f ("mm-memcg-slab-create-a-new-set-of-kmalloc-cg-n-caches-v5-fix")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.

Thank you, Stephen!

The resulting patch looks good to me.

Roman

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the percpu tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2025 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:33:12 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/memcontrol.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0f0cace35fa6 ("mm, memcg: mark cgroup_memory_nosocket, nokmem and noswap as __ro_after_init")
> 
> from the percpu tree and commits:
> 
>   dfe14954c6e4 ("mm: memcg/slab: don't create kmalloc-cg caches with cgroup.memory=nokmem")
>   3fd971b13287 ("mm-memcg-slab-create-a-new-set-of-kmalloc-cg-n-caches-v5")
>   53270d6d0c1f ("mm-memcg-slab-create-a-new-set-of-kmalloc-cg-n-caches-v5-fix")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> Andrew, you may want to look at commit
> 
>   4d5c8aedc8aa ("mm, memcg: introduce mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled()")
> 
> from the percpu tree.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc mm/memcontrol.c
> index 3c1641c67122,b9a6db6a7d4f..000000000000
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@@ -80,10 -80,10 +80,10 @@@ struct mem_cgroup *root_mem_cgroup __re
>   DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mem_cgroup *, int_active_memcg);
>   
>   /* Socket memory accounting disabled? */
>  -static bool cgroup_memory_nosocket;
>  +static bool cgroup_memory_nosocket __ro_after_init;
>   
>   /* Kernel memory accounting disabled? */
> - static bool cgroup_memory_nokmem __ro_after_init;
>  -bool cgroup_memory_nokmem;
> ++bool cgroup_memory_nokmem __ro_after_init;
>   
>   /* Whether the swap controller is active */
>   #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_SWAP

This is now a conflict between the percpu tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the percpu tree

[Dennis Zhou]

Hi Stephen,

On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 01:23:16PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:33:12 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   mm/memcontrol.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   0f0cace35fa6 ("mm, memcg: mark cgroup_memory_nosocket, nokmem and noswap as __ro_after_init")
> > 
> > from the percpu tree and commits:
> > 
> >   dfe14954c6e4 ("mm: memcg/slab: don't create kmalloc-cg caches with cgroup.memory=nokmem")
> >   3fd971b13287 ("mm-memcg-slab-create-a-new-set-of-kmalloc-cg-n-caches-v5")
> >   53270d6d0c1f ("mm-memcg-slab-create-a-new-set-of-kmalloc-cg-n-caches-v5-fix")
> > 
> > from the akpm-current tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> > 
> > Andrew, you may want to look at commit
> > 
> >   4d5c8aedc8aa ("mm, memcg: introduce mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled()")
> > 
> > from the percpu tree.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> > 
> > diff --cc mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 3c1641c67122,b9a6db6a7d4f..000000000000
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@@ -80,10 -80,10 +80,10 @@@ struct mem_cgroup *root_mem_cgroup __re
> >   DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mem_cgroup *, int_active_memcg);
> >   
> >   /* Socket memory accounting disabled? */
> >  -static bool cgroup_memory_nosocket;
> >  +static bool cgroup_memory_nosocket __ro_after_init;
> >   
> >   /* Kernel memory accounting disabled? */
> > - static bool cgroup_memory_nokmem __ro_after_init;
> >  -bool cgroup_memory_nokmem;
> > ++bool cgroup_memory_nokmem __ro_after_init;
> >   
> >   /* Whether the swap controller is active */
> >   #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_SWAP
> 
> This is now a conflict between the percpu tree and Linus' tree.
> 

Yeah I'm aware. I'm planning on sending my PR tomorrow mentioning it. I
also have an example merge up in percpu#for-5.14-merge for Linus.

Thanks,
Dennis

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the percpu tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Andrew,

Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:

  mm/percpu.c

between commits:

  93c76b6b2faa ("mm/percpu.c: correct max_distance calculation for pcpu_embed_first_chunk()")
  9b7396624a7b ("mm/percpu.c: fix potential memory leakage for pcpu_embed_first_chunk()")

from the percpu tree and commit:

  567f646230a5 ("mm/percpu.c: correct max_distance calculation for pcpu_embed_first_chunk()")

from the akpm-current tree.

There is one small differenve between 567f646230a5 and 9b7396624a7b and
then further changes in 93c76b6b2faa.

I fixed it up (using the percpu tree version) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the percpu tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:43:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/percpu.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   93c76b6b2faa ("mm/percpu.c: correct max_distance calculation for pcpu_embed_first_chunk()")
>   9b7396624a7b ("mm/percpu.c: fix potential memory leakage for pcpu_embed_first_chunk()")
> 
> from the percpu tree and commit:
> 
>   567f646230a5 ("mm/percpu.c: correct max_distance calculation for pcpu_embed_first_chunk()")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> There is one small differenve between 567f646230a5 and 9b7396624a7b and
> then further changes in 93c76b6b2faa.

Cut an paste error.  Should have said:

There is one small difference between 567f646230a5 and 93c76b6b2faa and
then further changes in 9b7396624a7b.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell