On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:05 PM Roman Gushchin [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 09:27:56AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:02 AM Roman Gushchin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:04:05AM -0400, Dan Schatzberg wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:06:44AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:55 AM Dan Schatzberg [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Much of the discussion about this has died down. There's been a
concern raised that we could generalize infrastructure across loop,
md, etc. This may be possible, in the future, but it isn't clear to me
how this would look like. I'm inclined to fix the existing issue with
loop devices now (this is a problem we hit at FB) and address
consolidation with other cases if and when those need to be addressed.

What's the status of this series?

Thanks for reminding me about this. I haven't got any further
feedback. I'll bug Jens to take a look and see if he has any concerns
and if not send a rebased version.

Just as a note, I stole a patch from this series called
"mm: support nesting memalloc_use_memcg()" to use for the bpf memory accounting.
I rewrote the commit log and rebased to the tot with some trivial changes.

I just sent it upstream:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200821150134.2581465-1-guro-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org/T/#md7edb6b5b940cee1c4d15e3cef17aa8b07328c2e

It looks like we need it for two independent sub-systems, so I wonder
if we want to route it first through the mm tree as a standalone patch?

Another way is to push that patch to 5.9-rc2 linus tree, so both block
and mm branches for 5.10 will have it. (Not sure if that's ok.)

Ok, it looks like the patch provides a generally useful API enhancement.
And we do have at least two potential use cases for it.
Let me send it as a standalone patch to linux-mm@.

Btw, Shakeel, what do you think of s/memalloc_use_memcg()/set_active_memcg() ?

I am fine with it.