[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <532fe761-4907-4f4b-b98d-566453301399@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 20:31:41 -0400
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
tj@...nel.org, mkoutny@...e.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] vmscan,cgroup: apply mems_effective to reclaim
On 4/19/25 1:38 AM, Gregory Price wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> index 893a4c340d48..c64b4a174456 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ static inline void set_mems_allowed(nodemask_t nodemask)
> task_unlock(current);
> }
>
> +extern bool cpuset_node_allowed(struct cgroup *cgroup, int nid);
> #else /* !CONFIG_CPUSETS */
>
> static inline bool cpusets_enabled(void) { return false; }
> @@ -282,6 +283,10 @@ static inline bool read_mems_allowed_retry(unsigned int seq)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static inline bool cpuset_node_allowed(struct cgroup *cgroup, int nid)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> #endif /* !CONFIG_CPUSETS */
I suppose we should return true in the !CONFIG_CPUSETS case.
Other than that, the patch looks good to me.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists