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