Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 10:30:18 -0700
From:   David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To:     Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org,
        shakeelb@google.com, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Fix bugs in memcontroller cgroup tests
Message-ID: <20220512173018.3pqlfwfigbbkoh4u@dev0025.ash9.facebook.com>
References: <20220423155619.3669555-1-void@manifault.com>
 <20220512170410.GA16096@blackbody.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220512170410.GA16096@blackbody.suse.cz>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20211029
Precedence: bulk

Hi Michal,

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 07:04:10PM +0200, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> Are the Roman's patches merged anywhere? (I ran into some issues when I
> was rebasing your (David's) series on top of master.) I'd like to put
> all sensible patches in one series or stack on existing branch (if
> there's any).

Roman's patches are present on master on the linux-mm tree. See
b7dbfd6553d..a131b1ed12c6.

> For possible v3 of this series, I did:
>   - dropped the patch that allows non-zero memory.events:low for a sibling with
>     memory.low=0 when mounted with memory_recursiveprot (the case needs more
>     discussion),

Ack, and thanks for keeping us steered in the right direction here. I don't
see this in the patch set you linked, but I agree this commit should be
reverted and the reclaim logic instead fixed.

>   - added few more cleanups, convenience for debugging,

Are you referring to the FAIL() macro you added? I would love to Ack that,
but unfortunately checkpatch.pl will probably yell at you for having a goto
in that macro, per the point about avoiding macros that affect control flow
[0].

I tried to do the same thing when sending out my patch set and had to
revert it before sending it to upstream.

Thanks,
David

[0] https://github.com/Werkov/linux/commit/a076339cc4825af2f22f58c1347a572b104b8221