Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 06:39:56 +0000
In-Reply-To: <89B53D3A-FCC5-4107-8D49-81D5B9AE5172@linux.dev>
Message-Id: <20220331063956.5uqnab64cqnmcwyr@google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20220330191440.1cc1b2de2b849d1ba93d2ba7@linux-foundation.org> <89B53D3A-FCC5-4107-8D49-81D5B9AE5172@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/list_lru: Fix possible race in memcg_reparent_list_lru_node()
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 07:48:45PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>=20
>=20
[...]
>=20
>=20
> But honestly, I=E2=80=99d drop the original optimization together with th=
e fix, if only there is no _real world_ data on the problem and the improve=
ment. It seems like it has started as a nice simple improvement, but the ra=
ce makes it complex and probably not worth the added complexity and fragili=
ty.

I agree with dropping the original optimization as it is not really
fixing an observed issue which may justify adding some complexity.

thanks,
Shakeel