From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f71.google.com (mail-pl0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E8F6B0003 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 15:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f71.google.com with SMTP id i1-v6so20938125pld.11 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 12:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i3-v6si45940222pld.189.2018.06.04.12.07.30 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Jun 2018 12:07:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:07:02 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] Improve shrink_slab() scalability (old complexity was O(n^2), new is O(n)) Message-Id: <20180604120702.ef69c28585fe925f9a55e130@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <0e725889-c42f-0557-ef41-76e4c87a3c9b@virtuozzo.com> References: <152698356466.3393.5351712806709424140.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <0e725889-c42f-0557-ef41-76e4c87a3c9b@virtuozzo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Kirill Tkhai Cc: vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, shakeelb@google.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, pombredanne@nexb.com, stummala@codeaurora.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, guro@fb.com, mka@chromium.org, penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk, longman@redhat.com, minchan@kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, jbacik@fb.com, linux@roeck-us.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, willy@infradead.org, lirongqing@baidu.com, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 15:45:17 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote: > Hi, Andrew! > > This patchset is reviewed by Vladimir Davydov. I see, there is > minor change in current linux-next.git, which makes the second > patch to apply not completely clean. > > Could you tell what should I do with this? Is this OK or should > I rebase it on top of linux.next or do something else? A resend against 4.18-rc1 would be ideal, thanks.