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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 0F3CCC04AB4 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 08:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED81206A3 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 08:00:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bdwPkfc5" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728465AbfEQIAt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2019 04:00:49 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f66.google.com ([209.85.167.66]:43592 "EHLO mail-lf1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727520AbfEQIAs (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 May 2019 04:00:48 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f66.google.com with SMTP id u27so4621854lfg.10; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:00:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=E30ZwXceSLrrdqkhZETQJSrFB4D6w8xtvQQj0QSh1bk=; b=bdwPkfc51sJvmJvEEnbkjJeee5dDIVMrgrBcQbEWcuq3Gu7xg4Drx7Sxhgj0S7ifcX MHKOMyvUXD9qL1hCSXPCieoxHNgARijo9pvrnOH2EzfYZqXH5Lz7TJtcVndAOVHo4XZw rUwn3YonVOZFmAV/YnXpExobHSwnuBBeUq0GSrlLVM4UVA1/PVAvsvs3x6QuHTGJ4yyD kKNvUUksj1K0U1tcX4QimvxzelNTM+STaUm5uKCtcO3E7D+UqMhcG3yO+T91qZWg5dD+ Es9SUG2SdeE2D42NKKLasOMtjhLIsUYe12Is80QapjF0rNGGNHdoPyzrhlywFra9vN0d DceA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=E30ZwXceSLrrdqkhZETQJSrFB4D6w8xtvQQj0QSh1bk=; b=Lg94UA4xaWTncgcl46mE0Uv0BFMjDyVEBTEB1MinSTI119HUT0bQB1xZ5NRdH6gQBE sL1z/LfRVu3JxowHy3oDh04xllCh1TI9nBRIoZ0MlHllhWuF6b7caLmijldAHO3aoQzY RtimCxUcl8yYfpQv1XqohBgrWOaLGwxkf6qYYicijSetjXlAzlLP+GXBb1M2srSQYH1c N9ktw/m/YaK6Bjx6NEwVuOhXKu3c4iK74OjqADHGGOdNg8owc9LLegz7yawYPFI5QhQP OmcYmvtseKCGjWk8+mxq1MKqNeRXe3NP6dX4T22lXGdwljbx43RQ0DAsGXMv8lcZ6piW cQzA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXWlT5faqBNYTMubXvOYgxPaXC1vNhdrp7uxdqPnO5uoPcK3si9 QdUqcGTDWXISJkgUAr1zKew= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyj6/DLX73BQiC/tmB+COsEsDGqOV7JEYLnsSkkybRgysxcV2Grcx3KQm4HBOHGkZXarbVNkw== X-Received: by 2002:a19:a8c8:: with SMTP id r191mr26781060lfe.85.1558080047145; Fri, 17 May 2019 01:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esperanza ([185.6.245.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a25sm1288972ljd.32.2019.05.17.01.00.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 17 May 2019 01:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 11:00:44 +0300 From: Vladimir Davydov To: Jiri Slaby Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Raghavendra K T Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: make it work on sparse non-0-node systems Message-ID: <20190517080044.tnwhbeyxcccsymgf@esperanza> References: <359d98e6-044a-7686-8522-bdd2489e9456@suse.cz> <20190429105939.11962-1-jslaby@suse.cz> <20190509122526.ck25wscwanooxa3t@esperanza> <20190516135923.GV16651@dhcp22.suse.cz> <68075828-8fd7-adbb-c1d9-5eb39fbf18cb@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <68075828-8fd7-adbb-c1d9-5eb39fbf18cb@suse.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 06:48:37AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 16. 05. 19, 15:59, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> However, I tend to agree with Michal that (ab)using node[0].memcg_lrus > >> to check if a list_lru is memcg aware looks confusing. I guess we could > >> simply add a bool flag to list_lru instead. Something like this, may be: > > > > Yes, this makes much more sense to me! > > I am not sure if I should send a patch with this solution or Vladimir > will (given he is an author and has a diff already)? I didn't even try to compile it, let alone test it. I'd appreciate if you could wrap it up and send it out using your authorship. Feel free to add my acked-by.