From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/workingset : judge file page activity via timestamp
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:46:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190417114621.GF5878@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGWkznH6MjCkKeAO_1jJ07Ze2E3KHem0aNZ_Vwf080Yg-4Ujbw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed 17-04-19 19:36:21, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> sorry for the confusion. What I mean is the basic idea doesn't change
> as replacing the refault criteria from refault_distance to timestamp.
> But the detailed implementation changed a lot, including fix bugs,
> update the way of packing the timestamp, 32bit/64bit differentiation
> etc. So it makes sense for starting a new context.
Not really. My take away from the previous discussion is that Johannes
has questioned the timestamping approach itself. I wasn't following very
closely so I might be wrong here but if that is really the case then it
doesn't make much sense to improve the implementation if there is no
consensus on the approach itself.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-17 11:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-17 7:47 Zhaoyang Huang
2019-04-17 7:59 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2019-04-17 10:55 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2019-04-17 11:06 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-17 11:36 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2019-04-17 11:46 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-04-17 12:26 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2019-04-17 12:58 ` Michal Hocko
2019-04-17 13:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-04-23 11:43 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2019-04-17 8:45 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190417114621.GF5878@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox