On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 07:29:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:21:02 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Matthew,
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 03:55:44 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think conceptually, the folio for-next tree is part of mmotm for this
> > > cycle. I would have asked Andrew to carry these patches, but there are
> > > people (eg Dave Howells) who want to develop against them. And that's
> > > hard to do with patches that are in mmotm.
> > >
> > > So if Andrew bases mmotm on the folio tree for this cycle, does that
> > > make sense?
> >
> > Sure. I will have a little pain the first day it appears, but it
> > should be OK after that. I am on leave starting Saturday, so if you
> > could get me a tree without the mmotm patches for tomorrow that would
> > be good.
>
> Sure, let's go that way. Linus wasn't terribly enthusiastic about the
> folio patches and I can't claim to be overwhelmed by their value/churn
> ratio (but many MM developers are OK with it all, and that
> counts). Doing it this way retains options...
I'm happy to take these three patches through my tree if it makes life
easier (and it does resolve the majority of the pain):
mm, memcg: add mem_cgroup_disabled checks in vmpressure and swap-related functions
mm, memcg: inline mem_cgroup_{charge/uncharge} to improve disabled memcg config
mm, memcg: inline swap-related functions to improve disabled memcg config
Up to you, really.
