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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7965BC4361B for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:49:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354E222D0B for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730086AbgLOWtR (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2020 17:49:17 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36092 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727068AbgLOWtM (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2020 17:49:12 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x143.google.com (mail-lf1-x143.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::143]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4794C061793 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:48:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x143.google.com with SMTP id u18so43562182lfd.9 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:48:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6SRWuFo92SM064QyV0W13yR71kbBhAobGQxQ9l5tQV0=; b=IwokctP9iac7BgaORL9Wl2HAGv8ftuxP51ZoQbpCD5Zay1eYecNU4vUPMmtxGDC7VO lP5x8kkCTqJBcuxHpUSXTiPFzC4yMjyzIRIAu4IzSNSKriMmVxLrPcEpYm+/eiEJlRgp f+npEKCzzkUS8XhDnsGTGEfIh+B+uncpjKGlk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6SRWuFo92SM064QyV0W13yR71kbBhAobGQxQ9l5tQV0=; b=QlB15X+o2CTaY/f2grds5pSPMYtIxmUKfE7RXTXrI3hityJc0dE9bhCpzlZ8w9mWSg Pql1vpr6Y0/u8LdPi0P5Bsva6DOPLKRaOrrgE/BkBFw8cPeidAEabymRZTTfunbB0FZx x6PfSi3u+83nfuvLOX3ZDH+rMQJZkewv7fm+BI4ODrbM47nWXGHIyicln1siEgX7DrFK q0ZxQ8c+7p1WrFnXKb/J6O+/27XSaPWibURc6gNqNMj/Cs10GHam3H627g9Wu7PIgPdd X4VJdV6GGXge8MZ/+lTfm9rvVN9Ys4p9BSWXahx2oA/frjCgn8NkAGPNhG8jQBmDIbEL o/5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ZBP+xOa2tdKsBKMG46Qio6oHXylWkBpHCOVhTQ6+i2hNDmMgy 28rSQgxtlKY3jTbM2X+kPrT1ZbXinpA+RQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyD84h0Ht5J8waLCu34nn0XEKqRC0J+Y98DOva2n3ko2fV8GlXFkvnQ6V1yMtulmtNBJ1JC8w== X-Received: by 2002:a19:5ca:: with SMTP id 193mr12835818lff.375.1608072510106; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-f43.google.com (mail-lf1-f43.google.com. [209.85.167.43]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q15sm13311ljh.136.2020.12.15.14.48.29 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:48:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-f43.google.com with SMTP id o19so17943172lfo.1 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:48:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3048:: with SMTP id b8mr12547465lfb.421.1608072508910; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:48:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201215123253.954eca9a5ef4c0d52fd381fa@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20201215123253.954eca9a5ef4c0d52fd381fa@linux-foundation.org> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:48:13 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: incoming To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linux-MM , mm-commits@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:32 PM Andrew Morton wrote: > > - more MM work: a memcg scalability improvememt > > 19 patches, based on 148842c98a24e508aecb929718818fbf4c2a6ff3. With your re-send, I get all patches, but they don't actually apply cleanly. Is that base correct? I get error: patch failed: mm/huge_memory.c:2750 error: mm/huge_memory.c: patch does not apply Patch failed at 0004 mm/thp: narrow lru locking for that patch "[patch 04/19] mm/thp: narrow lru locking", and that's definitely true: the patch fragment has @@ -2750,7 +2751,7 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page __dec_lruvec_page_state(head, NR_FILE_THPS); } - __split_huge_page(page, list, end, flags); + __split_huge_page(page, list, end); ret = 0; } else { if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM) && mapcount) { but that __dec_lruvec_page_state() conversion was done by your previous commit series. So I have the feeling that what you actually mean by "base" isn't actually really the base for that series at all.. I will try to apply it on top of my merge of your previous series instead. Linus