On 5/28/24 3:40 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2024-05-28 14:34:55 [+0200], Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: >> > The safety of the counter update is already ensured by >> > VM_WARN_ON_IRQS_ENABLED() which is part of memcg_stats_lock() and does >> > not require yet another check. >> >> I think here it's __mod_memcg_lruvec_state() doing the VM_WARN_ON_ as we >> don't go through memcg_stats_lock()? > > It is either VM_WARN_ON_IRQS_ENABLED() directly as in > __mod_memcg_lruvec_state() (which is special) or memcg_stats_lock(). > > Do you want me to rephrase this part? I think just s/memcg_stats_lock()/__mod_memcg_lruvec_state()/ in your phrasing, since we are removing the lockdep assert from path that calls __mod_memcg_lruvec_state() and not memcg_stats_lock()? Or am I missing something? > Sebastian
