From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0278F6B026A for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id b25-v6so940135eds.17 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j19-v6si327889eds.376.2018.07.17.12.13.42 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] mm: rename and change semantics of nr_indirectly_reclaimable_bytes References: <20180618091808.4419-6-vbabka@suse.cz> <201806201923.mC5ZpigB%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <38c6a6e1-c5e0-fd7d-4baf-1f0f09be5094@suse.cz> <20180629211201.GA14897@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20180702165223.GA17295@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20180717185451.GA18762@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <0e1e8870-9c98-2330-e978-f927c33eec49@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:11:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180717185451.GA18762@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Matthew Wilcox , Vijayanand Jitta , Laura Abbott , Sumit Semwal On 07/17/2018 08:54 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:44:07AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 07/02/2018 06:52 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:09:27PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>> >>> If these per-cpu data is something like per-cpu refcounters, >>> which are using to manage reclaimable objects (e.g. cgroup css objects). >>> Of course, they are not always reclaimable, but in certain states. >> >> BTW, seems you seem interested, could you provide some more formal >> review as well? Others too. We don't need to cover all use cases >> immediately, when the patchset is apparently stalled due to lack of >> review. Thanks! > > Sure! Thanks! > The patchset looks sane at a first glance, but I need some time > to dig deeper. Is v2 the final version? There was a fixlet on top and some added changelog text, so I'll do a v3 tomorrow incorporating that to make things easier for everyone. > Thanks! >