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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 9B692C33CA1 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:44:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6F820721 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:44:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="hI9/5ZJ6" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5C6F820721 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id F00158E0005; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id EAF448E0001; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:44:17 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id DC5C08E0005; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:44:17 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0175.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.175]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B918E0001 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E9C4499607 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:44:17 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76359122154.05.goose99_84dbb8e37705 X-HE-Tag: goose99_84dbb8e37705 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2617 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf35.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:44:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1155C206ED; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:44:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1578599056; bh=aWYo5RikeExdUKjeA0IF0IiexjTlOjGLfvmX7ixDTrc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=hI9/5ZJ6jUlP4EKQPf1wxWSOPUyG5LAlREt7GtxoKdzNXnPf1UT8pgHco6b2fQpH8 rJ5o/zai1Qlz483NNtHMgLbB+8eZ1oihjmcSEdUpcGCjNKlKMDZuxEBEnhfmF5MVNG vnlDW9U6KJy3/T3EmH1vKZVjpFZAod5e6u7TDEbk= Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 11:44:15 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Michal Hocko Cc: Christopher Lameter , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: SLUB: purpose of sysfs events on cache creation/removal Message-Id: <20200109114415.cf01bd3ad30c5c4aec981653@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20200109145236.GS4951@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20191127162400.GT20912@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20191127174317.GD26807@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20191204132812.GF25242@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20191204153225.GM25242@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20191204173224.GN25242@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200106115733.GH12699@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200109145236.GS4951@dhcp22.suse.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:52:36 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 06-01-20 15:51:26, Cristopher Lameter wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Wed 04-12-19 18:32:24, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > [Cc akpm - the email thread starts > > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191126121901.GE20912@dhcp22.suse.cz] > > > > > > ping. > > > > There does not seem to be much of an interest in the patch? > > It seems it has just fallen through cracks. I looked at it - there wasn't really any compelling followup. If this change should be pursued then can we please have a formal resend?