The patch titled
Subject: memcg: __mem_cgroup_free: remove stale disarm_static_keys comment
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
memcg-__mem_cgroup_free-remove-stale-disarm_static_keys-comment.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: memcg: __mem_cgroup_free: remove stale disarm_static_keys comment
cpuset code stopped using cgroup_lock in favor of cpuset_mutex long ago.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 11 -----------
1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
diff -puN mm/memcontrol.c~memcg-__mem_cgroup_free-remove-stale-disarm_static_keys-comment mm/memcontrol.c
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c~memcg-__mem_cgroup_free-remove-stale-disarm_static_keys-comment
+++ a/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -4724,17 +4724,6 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_free(struct mem
free_percpu(memcg->stat);
- /*
- * We need to make sure that (at least for now), the jump label
- * destruction code runs outside of the cgroup lock. This is because
- * get_online_cpus(), which is called from the static_branch update,
- * can't be called inside the cgroup_lock. cpusets are the ones
- * enforcing this dependency, so if they ever change, we might as well.
- *
- * schedule_work() will guarantee this happens. Be careful if you need
- * to move this code around, and make sure it is outside
- * the cgroup_lock.
- */
disarm_static_keys(memcg);
kfree(memcg);
}
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from vdavydov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx are
origin.patch
linux-next.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
