On Mon 29-04-19 12:40:51, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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.
Humm, I blame jet-lag. I was convinced that this is an internal email.
Sorry about the confusion.
Anyway, time to revisit 145949a1387ba. CCed Raghavendra.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
