Re: [PATCH] mm: Proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:52:40 +0000 Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:

> > Hmm, this isn't really a common situation that I'd thought about, but it
> > seems reasonable to make the boundaries when in low reclaim to be between
> > min and low, rather than 0 and low. I'll add another patch with that. Thanks
>
> It's not a stopper, so I'm perfectly fine with a follow-up patch.

Did this happen?


I'm still trying to get this five month old patchset unstuck :(.  The
review status is: 

[1/3] mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim
Acked-by: Johannes
Reviewed-by: Roman

[2/3] mm, memcg: make memory.emin the baseline for utilisation determination
Acked-by: Johannes

[3/3] mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection
Reviewed-by: Roman


I do have a note here that mhocko intended to take a closer look but I
don't recall whether that happened.

I could

a) say what the hell and merge them or
b) sit on them for another cycle or
c) drop them and ask Chris for a resend so we can start again.