[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALOAHbArZ3NsuR3mCnx_kbSF8ktpjhUF2kaaTa7Mb7ocJajsQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 00:27:24 +0800
From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm, memcg: Decouple e{low,min} state mutations
from protection checks
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 12:07 AM Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> wrote:
>
> Chris Down writes:
> >Yafang Shao writes:
> >>I will do it.
> >>If no one has objection to my proposal, I will send it tomorrow.
> >
> >If the fixup patch works, just send that. Otherwise, sure.
>
> Oh, I see the other reply from Naresh now saying it didn't help.
>
> Sure, feel free to do that for now then while we work out what the real problem
> is.
Regarding the root cause, my guess is it makes a similar mistake that
I tried to fix in the previous patch that the direct reclaimer read a
stale protection value. But I don't think it is worth to add another
fix. The best way is to revert this commit.
--
Thanks
Yafang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists