linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm tree with the cgroup tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y7edy9vr4VQ7BwzP@debian.me>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 11:04:27 +0700
From:   Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm tree with the cgroup tree

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 12:59:15PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   da3ad2e14f63 ("docs: cgroup-v1: add internal cross-references")
> 
> from the cgroup tree and commits:
> 
>   6cd7ad27c60f ("mm: memcontrol: deprecate charge moving")
>   9bf9f4ba8bd5 ("mm-memcontrol-deprecate-charge-moving-fix")
> 
> from the mm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst
> index 27d89495ac88,258e45cc3b2d..000000000000
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/memory.rst
> @@@ -725,10 -719,15 +727,17 @@@ If we want to change this to 1G, we ca
>          It is recommended to set the soft limit always below the hard limit,
>          otherwise the hard limit will take precedence.
>   
>  +.. _cgroup-v1-memory-move-charges:
>  +
> - 8. Move charges at task migration
> - =================================
> + 8. Move charges at task migration (DEPRECATED!)
> + ===============================================
> + 
> + THIS IS DEPRECATED!
> + 
> + It's expensive and unreliable! It's better practice to launch workload
> + tasks directly from inside their target cgroup. Use dedicated workload
> + cgroups to allow fine-grained policy adjustments without having to
> + move physical pages between control domains.
>   
>   Users can move charges associated with a task along with task migration, that
>   is, uncharge task's pages from the old cgroup and charge them to the new cgroup.


Ah! I see the oversight in 4ddb1a2aa1a3c4 ("docs: cgroup-v1: wrap
remaining admonitions in admonition blocks") instead. I forgot to remove
mention to the deprecation notice, which is present in mm tree rather
than cgroups one...

The fixup makes the deprecation notice isn't consistent with other
admonitions in the doc (which have been wrapped), so I have recently sent
the wrapper patch for it at [1].

Thanks.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20230106034836.23708-1-bagasdotme@gmail.com/

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)