On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:02 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:04:05AM -0400, Dan Schatzberg wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:06:44AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:55 AM Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Much of the discussion about this has died down. There's been a > > > > concern raised that we could generalize infrastructure across loop, > > > > md, etc. This may be possible, in the future, but it isn't clear to me > > > > how this would look like. I'm inclined to fix the existing issue with > > > > loop devices now (this is a problem we hit at FB) and address > > > > consolidation with other cases if and when those need to be addressed. > > > > > > > > > > What's the status of this series? > > > > Thanks for reminding me about this. I haven't got any further > > feedback. I'll bug Jens to take a look and see if he has any concerns > > and if not send a rebased version. > > Just as a note, I stole a patch from this series called > "mm: support nesting memalloc_use_memcg()" to use for the bpf memory accounting. > I rewrote the commit log and rebased to the tot with some trivial changes. > > I just sent it upstream: > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200821150134.2581465-1-guro@xxxxxx/T/#md7edb6b5b940cee1c4d15e3cef17aa8b07328c2e > > It looks like we need it for two independent sub-systems, so I wonder > if we want to route it first through the mm tree as a standalone patch? > Another way is to push that patch to 5.9-rc2 linus tree, so both block and mm branches for 5.10 will have it. (Not sure if that's ok.)
