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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982ECC433F5 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0FC956B0071; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:52:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 0AC7D6B0073; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:52:07 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EDD206B0074; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:52:06 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0095.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.95]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE2E6B0071 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 02:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D0B876FC for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:51:56 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78922888632.28.8D33A87 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89B4140011 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 2021 07:51:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 08:51:52 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1639641113; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7M0mhRgQajj4JooEekItEmeezbDQdgPBX9TAoVx0FJ4=; b=fFIBCwWplbZ0Rdcm9iQ+R/u7UmGMd+qS7fmMP6RWtHq2X8wxzfHokIcFxQk9Fn/xFZhpbC y8equxQrn8WrWM1R7Gi3s3ux6ycuV3Qkj5ssXxfeeymw20UjYrIQgkb+cYxDzaOERm1bxj 4X7xN0c1x9kj99x6vQz5HPLAbf6ou+LeBW17X6oyt4bg8GWjTBR6jWBAggamBoAC5nq8f1 6o7IDHjfrLH2NAIlK/N5Bv94kXywaz+BJR62yeM+5cEjB9ELtIvEgqxJRkY6e6v3nrifC2 wDKOhtt1p9VpK4ujtNK79ZdyRcvms2BvgRcRzVBFvpIAFAW3fIXnJ9Gtv2ekmg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1639641113; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7M0mhRgQajj4JooEekItEmeezbDQdgPBX9TAoVx0FJ4=; b=4DYVkaQQzSIvUTNyOabyRGRff4LFhI6EsnuFBJ/cD/VnzcEAIm2QGCrJVDH5iYiwhF6UQt Q3hC1ZsoHK26A5Bg== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Vladimir Davydov , Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Disable on PREEMPT_RT Message-ID: References: <20211207155208.eyre5svucpg7krxe@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B89B4140011 X-Stat-Signature: p6qzwruzxcre6nrfoawcfah9hg88wjyo Authentication-Results: imf09.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020 header.b=fFIBCwWp; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020e header.b=4DYVkaQQ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass (imf09.hostedemail.com: domain of bigeasy@linutronix.de designates 193.142.43.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bigeasy@linutronix.de X-HE-Tag: 1639641112-498871 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2021-12-15 19:44:00 [+0100], Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 15-12-21 18:13:40, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > Okay. What do I gain by doing this / how do I test this? Is running > > tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_*mem* sufficient to test all corner > > cases here? > > I am not fully aware of all the tests but my point is that if the soft > limit is not configured then there are no soft limit tree manipulations > ever happening and therefore the code is effectivelly dead. Is this > sufficient for the RT patchset to ignore the RT incompatible parts? So if that softlimit is not essential and makes things easier by simply disabling it, yes I could try that. I will keep that in mind. Sebastian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcontrol: Disable on PREEMPT_RT Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 08:51:52 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20211207155208.eyre5svucpg7krxe@linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1639641113; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7M0mhRgQajj4JooEekItEmeezbDQdgPBX9TAoVx0FJ4=; b=fFIBCwWplbZ0Rdcm9iQ+R/u7UmGMd+qS7fmMP6RWtHq2X8wxzfHokIcFxQk9Fn/xFZhpbC y8equxQrn8WrWM1R7Gi3s3ux6ycuV3Qkj5ssXxfeeymw20UjYrIQgkb+cYxDzaOERm1bxj 4X7xN0c1x9kj99x6vQz5HPLAbf6ou+LeBW17X6oyt4bg8GWjTBR6jWBAggamBoAC5nq8f1 6o7IDHjfrLH2NAIlK/N5Bv94kXywaz+BJR62yeM+5cEjB9ELtIvEgqxJRkY6e6v3nrifC2 wDKOhtt1p9VpK4ujtNK79ZdyRcvms2BvgRcRzVBFvpIAFAW3fIXnJ9Gtv2ekmg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1639641113; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7M0mhRgQajj4JooEekItEmeezbDQdgPBX9TAoVx0FJ4=; b=4DYVkaQQzSIvUTNyOabyRGRff4LFhI6EsnuFBJ/cD/VnzcEAIm2QGCrJVDH5iYiwhF6UQt Q3hC1ZsoHK26A5Bg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Vladimir Davydov , Waiman Long On 2021-12-15 19:44:00 [+0100], Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 15-12-21 18:13:40, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > Okay. What do I gain by doing this / how do I test this? Is running > > tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_*mem* sufficient to test all corner > > cases here? > > I am not fully aware of all the tests but my point is that if the soft > limit is not configured then there are no soft limit tree manipulations > ever happening and therefore the code is effectivelly dead. Is this > sufficient for the RT patchset to ignore the RT incompatible parts? So if that softlimit is not essential and makes things easier by simply disabling it, yes I could try that. I will keep that in mind. Sebastian