On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 20:21:11 +1100 Balbir Singh <bsingharora@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 01:10:18PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 11/26/20 5:30 AM, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > When alloc_super() allocates list_lrus for dentries and inodes > > > they are made memcg aware if KMEM is compiled in, we should > > > also check if kmem was disabled at runtime. > > > > > > This overhead is about 32 bytes extra per possible nodes per caller > > > of list_lru_init() > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > I'd rather export cgroup_memory_nokmem and make cgroup_kmem_disabled() > > inline, put it next to memcg_kmem_enabled() and explain in comments what > > each means. > > > > And ideally, the current memcg_kmem_enabled() should be named e.g. > > memcg_kmem_active(), and then the new cgroup_kmem_disabled() could be named > > memcg_kmem_enabled(). But that's churn and potential future backport hazard, > > so dunno. > > Yes, I am happy with whatever approach works to fast track the patches > > Andrew, thoughts/comments? > Your original changelog doesn't make the case that the patch should be fast tracked, so it looks like there's missing information. Please don't miss information ;) If we're looking for a backportable quickfix for the not-yet-really-explained problem then yes, Vlastimil's suggestion (as a high-priority patch and a separate low-priority patch) sounds good. It is rather a twisty maze of identifiers, so please do comment everything well.
