From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B464AC4360C for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83426222C3 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:49:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 83426222C3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1BF796B0006; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 16F9A6B0008; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:49:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 086AE6B000A; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:49:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0162.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.162]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB11D6B0006 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:49:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 70DA1181AC9C6 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:49:56 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75976902792.30.curve60_56bb887b0dc63 X-HE-Tag: curve60_56bb887b0dc63 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3597 Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf50.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:49:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D1EAEEC; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:49:53 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , Chris Down , Tejun Heo , Dennis Zhou , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Kernel Team Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim Message-ID: <20190926114953.GA1224@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190124014455.GA6396@chrisdown.name> <20190128210031.GA31446@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20190128214213.GB15349@chrisdown.name> <20190128215230.GA32069@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <20190715153527.86a3f6e65ecf5d501252dbf1@linux-foundation.org> <20190716172459.GB16575@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190716172459.GB16575@cmpxchg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: [Hmm, this one somehow slipped through. sorry about that] On Tue 16-07-19 13:24:59, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:35:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:52:40 +0000 Roman Gushchin 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 forgot to send out the actual ack-tag on #, so I just did. I was > involved in the discussions that led to that patch, the code looks > good to me, and it's what we've been using internally for a while > without any hiccups. > > > I do have a note here that mhocko intended to take a closer look but I > > don't recall whether that happened. > > Michal acked #3 in 20190530065111.GC6703@dhcp22.suse.cz. Afaik not the > others, but #3 also doesn't make a whole lot of sense without #1... > > > 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. > > Michal, would you have time to take another look this week? Otherwise, > I think everyone who would review them has done so. I do not remember objecting to this particular patch. I also admit I do not remember much about it either. I am unlikely to get to review this in more depth these days. It seems more people have reviewed it already so just go ahead. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs