On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:05:05 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 02:28:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:58:58 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The calls to tcp_init_cgroup() appear earlier in the series than "mm: > > > memcontrol: hook up vmpressure to socket pressure". However, they get > > > moved around a few times so fixing it earlier means respinning the > > > series. Andrew, it's up to you whether we take the bisectability hit > > > for !CONFIG_INET && CONFIG_MEMCG (how common is this?) or whether you > > > want me to resend the series. > > > > hm, drat, I was suspecting dependency issues here, but a test build > > said it was OK. > > > > Actually, I was expecting this patch series to depend on the linux-next > > cgroup2 changes, but that doesn't appear to be the case. *should* this > > series be staged after the cgroup2 code? > > Code-wise they are independent. My stuff is finishing up the new memcg > control knobs, the cgroup2 stuff is changing how and when those knobs > are exposed from within the cgroup core. I'm not relying on any recent > changes in the cgroup core AFAICS, so the order shouldn't matter here. OK, thanks. > > Regarding this particular series: yes, I think we can live with a > > bisection hole for !CONFIG_INET && CONFIG_MEMCG users. But I'm not > > sure why we're discussing bisection issues, because Arnd's build > > failure occurs with everything applied? > > Arnd's patches apply to the top of the stack, but they address issues > introduced early in the series and the problematic code gets touched a > lot in subsequent patches. E.g. the first build breakage is in ("net: > tcp_memcontrol: simplify linkage between socket and page counter") > when the tcp_init_cgroup() and tcp_destroy_cgroup() function calls get > moved around and lose the CONFIG_INET protection. Yeah, this is a pain. I think I'll fold Arnd's fix into mm-memcontrol-introduce-config_memcg_legacy_kmem.patch (which is staged after all the other MM patches and after linux-next) and will pretend I didn't know about the issue ;) > Anyway, if we can live with the bisection caveat then Arnd's fixes on > top of the kmem series look good to me. Depending on what Vladimir > thinks we might want to replace the CONFIG_SLOB fix with something > else later on, but that shouldn't be a problem, either. I don't have a fix for the CONFIG_SLOB&&CONFIG_MEMCG issue yet. I agree that it would be best to make the combination work correctly rather than banning it, but that does require a bit of runtime testing. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>