From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB45E6B0005 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id g62so86453442wme.0 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:07:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.anarazel.de (mail.anarazel.de. [217.115.131.40]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x13si20671622wjw.168.2016.02.19.14.07.16 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:07:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:07:01 -0800 From: Andres Freund Subject: Re: Unhelpful caching decisions, possibly related to active/inactive sizing Message-ID: <20160219220701.zjmonn3mj4sgmqcs@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <20160209165240.th5bx4adkyewnrf3@alap3.anarazel.de> <20160209224256.GA29872@cmpxchg.org> <20160211153404.42055b27@cuia.usersys.redhat.com> <20160212202405.GA32367@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160212202405.GA32367@cmpxchg.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka Hi Johannes, On 2016-02-12 15:24:05 -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > I've updated the patch to work with cgroups. Are tests of this patch, in contrast to the earlier version, necessary? If so, what's this patch based upon? Because it doesn't seem to apply cleanly to any tree I know about. Not very hard to resolve conflicts, mind you, but ... - Andres -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org