On Mon 29-04-19 12:09:53, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 29. 04. 19, 11:25, Jiri Slaby wrote:> memcg_update_all_list_lrus
> should take care about resizing the array.
>
> It should, but:
> [ 0.058362] Number of physical nodes 2
> [ 0.058366] Skipping disabled node 0
>
> So this should be the real fix:
> --- linux-5.0-stable1.orig/mm/list_lru.c
> +++ linux-5.0-stable1/mm/list_lru.c
> @@ -37,11 +37,12 @@ static int lru_shrinker_id(struct list_l
>
> static inline bool list_lru_memcg_aware(struct list_lru *lru)
> {
> - /*
> - * This needs node 0 to be always present, even
> - * in the systems supporting sparse numa ids.
> - */
> - return !!lru->node[0].memcg_lrus;
> + int i;
> +
> + for_each_online_node(i)
> + return !!lru->node[i].memcg_lrus;
> +
> + return false;
> }
>
> static inline struct list_lru_one *
>
>
>
>
>
> Opinions?
Please report upstream. This code here is there for quite some time.
I do not really remember why we do have an assumption about node 0
and why it hasn't been problem until now.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
