[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8f288275-da78-335d-e83d-7e073fcd3b88@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 09:13:26 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
tj@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com, khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru,
daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com, willy@...radead.org, lkp@...el.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, richard.weiyang@...il.com,
kirill@...temov.name, alexander.duyck@...il.com,
rong.a.chen@...el.com, mhocko@...e.com, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
shy828301@...il.com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 02/20] mm/memcg: bail early from swap accounting if
memcg disabled
在 2020/10/30 下午10:04, Johannes Weiner 写道:
>>> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>>>
>>> This should go in before the previous patch that adds the WARN for it.
>> Right, but than the long ops may not weird. Should I remove the ops and resend the whole patchset?
> You mean the warning in the changelog? I think that's alright. You can
> just say that you're about to remove the !page->memcg check in the
> next patch because the original reasons for having it are gone, and
> memcg being disabled is the only remaining exception, so this patch
> makes that check explicit in preparation for the next.
>
> Sorry, it's all a bit of a hassle, I just wouldn't want to introduce a
> known warning into the kernel between those two patches (could confuse
> bisection runs, complicates partial reverts etc.)
H Johannes,
I see, I will exchange the 1st and 2nd patch place with above comments in commit log.
I guess you could give more comments on other patches, so I am going to wait you for
more comments and send v21 as a whole. :)
Many thanks!
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists