From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0E7C28CF5 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 14:45:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 891AD6B0072; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8403C6B0074; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:45:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 72F0D6B0075; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:45:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636B76B0072 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC7B181D8626 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 14:45:24 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79072711368.24.E74EF8A Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26571A0008 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 14:45:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 15:45:20 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1643208321; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=oHTX2+frIu1UrhvB+dpyRcYGwmhZVbTk9VdBIsf28C0=; b=KHbir9cR5tJpv8jOUgX7x/r5Tk/L0cuWYWeeFytmAi8psS1tmbSxE081S2e8Y3KGsCU3gQ cv6mX9dMpwrZw3wwI3IsNghlLDfYdk5nvE6kAVIPY8XRMuVclHzgf+JDasZFIrYcs2sH+4 NMc0ms8jS23QybtGd1JsDzEQ2HIxQFVnQTfUxa7ptOUbzKLd9SO7krduTma0OjkEsKB0Mq WkAwfysMe5xjx8AhWcQg1Iy7MBzheZgwqF08O6UD7hLH/G7g6DKHoHqJUYqPrj1m6Tv1ak ntOysuqxSe15Us1UATkiclte65DG8Vkk8Kewp+/rJ1MlF6hircPCtOoQsJKYKw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1643208321; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=oHTX2+frIu1UrhvB+dpyRcYGwmhZVbTk9VdBIsf28C0=; b=+KcseHn/VigDpGR4syaqZQM7QlhQHbLoVsEP/sUWC4bNzMjC4P3GLRl4HEmFgbocdgG1BK rqMKQ+qvjPpsfgBw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Michal Hocko Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Vladimir Davydov , Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/memcg: Disable threshold event handlers on PREEMPT_RT Message-ID: References: <20220125164337.2071854-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20220125164337.2071854-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: zaw7w7qz4qgwozube4if674boykujtij X-Rspam-User: nil Authentication-Results: imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020 header.b=KHbir9cR; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020e header.b="+KcseHn/"; spf=pass (imf19.hostedemail.com: domain of bigeasy@linutronix.de designates 193.142.43.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bigeasy@linutronix.de; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linutronix.de X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D26571A0008 X-HE-Tag: 1643208323-36018 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2022-01-26 15:40:54 [+0100], Michal Hocko wrote: > I still support this approach but the patch is much larger than > necessary. The code moving shouldn't be really necessary and a simple > "do not allow" to set any thresholds or soft limit should be good > enough.=20 >=20 > While in general it is better to disable the unreachable code I do not > think this is worth the code churn here. I got the "defined but not used" warnings by the compiler after I disabled the two functions. Then I moved everything to one code block to avoid the multiple ifdefs. If that is not good, let me think of something else=E2=80=A6 Sebastian