From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754357AbcBWSHB (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:07:01 -0500 Received: from gum.cmpxchg.org ([85.214.110.215]:59820 "EHLO gum.cmpxchg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751799AbcBWSHA (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:07:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:06:54 -0800 From: Johannes Weiner To: Mel Gorman Cc: Linux-MM , Rik van Riel , Vlastimil Babka , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/27] mm, vmscan: Check if cpusets are enabled during direct reclaim Message-ID: <20160223180654.GB13816@cmpxchg.org> References: <1456239890-20737-1-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <1456239890-20737-3-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1456239890-20737-3-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net> 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 Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 03:04:25PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > Direct reclaim obeys cpusets but misses the cpusets_enabled() check. > The overhead is unlikely to be measurable in the direct reclaim > path which is expensive but there is no harm is doing it. > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Acked-by: Johannes Weiner