Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:50:27 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: memcg: fix stale protection of reclaim target memcg |
| |
On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:38:12 -0800 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:35 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:26:05 -0800 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> wrote: > > > > > Andrew, does this need to be picked up by stable branches? > > > > Does it? The changelog doesn't have a clear description of the > > user-visible effects of the flaw, which is the guiding light for a > > backport? > > > > > > There are 2 example scenarios in the changelog that misbehave without > this fix, cases where the protection of a memcg that is the target of > reclaim is not ignored as it should be.
Yes. I found them quite unclear. How would someone who is experiencing a particualr runtime issue be able to recognize whether this patch might address that issue?
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |