Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220127162636.3461256-1-shakeelb@google.com> <YfPgRU7Swo0VczUd@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <YfPgRU7Swo0VczUd@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 08:20:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CALvZod4Tg8VAPOYriNfQAdW1TM1vf9rQu+7N6jc0Mod096RFCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: replace in_interrupt() with !in_task()
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 4:23 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 27-01-22 08:26:36, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > Replace the deprecated in_interrupt() with !in_task() because
> > in_interrupt() returns true for BH disabled even if the call happens in
> > the task context. in_task() is the right interface to differentiate
> > task context from NMI, hard IRQ and softirq contexts.
>
> Makes sense. I do not think this will have any visible effect. Except
> for removing a deprecated call, right?

Correct, that is my understanding as well.