On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 10:27:51AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > > > 在 2020/10/29 下午9:46, Johannes Weiner 写道: > >> ? release_pages+0x1ae/0x410 > >> shmem_alloc_and_acct_page+0x77/0x1c0 > >> shmem_getpage_gfp+0x162/0x910 > >> shmem_fault+0x74/0x210 > >> ? filemap_map_pages+0x29c/0x410 > >> __do_fault+0x37/0x190 > >> handle_mm_fault+0x120a/0x1770 > >> exc_page_fault+0x251/0x450 > >> ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x8/0x30 > >> asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <[email protected]> > >> Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> > >> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <[email protected]> > >> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Michal Hocko <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected] > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> > > > > This should go in before the previous patch that adds the WARN for it. > > Right, but than the long ops may not weird. Should I remove the ops and > resend the whole patchset?
You mean the warning in the changelog? I think that's alright. You can just say that you're about to remove the !page->memcg check in the next patch because the original reasons for having it are gone, and memcg being disabled is the only remaining exception, so this patch makes that check explicit in preparation for the next. Sorry, it's all a bit of a hassle, I just wouldn't want to introduce a known warning into the kernel between those two patches (could confuse bisection runs, complicates partial reverts etc.)
