Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:20:40 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        rafael@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        darrick.wong@oracle.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        hughd@google.com, shuah@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org,
        ulf.hansson@linaro.org, aspriel@gmail.com,
        vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org, robin.murphy@arm.com, joe@perches.com,
        heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au,
        vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
        penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com,
        willy@infradead.org, ying.huang@intel.com, shakeelb@google.com,
        jbacik@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/10] rcu: Make CONFIG_SRCU unconditionally enabled
Message-ID: <20180808072040.GC27972@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <153365625652.19074.8434946780002619802.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <153365625652.19074.8434946780002619802.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 07-08-18 18:37:36, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.

The last time somebody tried to do this there was a pushback due to
kernel tinyfication. So this should really give some numbers about the
code size increase. Also why can't we make this depend on MMU. Is
anybody else than the reclaim asking for unconditional SRCU usage?

Btw. I totaly agree with Steven. This is a very poor changelog. It is
trivial to see what the patch does but it is far from clear why it is
doing that and why we cannot go other ways.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs