linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
	joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
	ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, david@redhat.com,
	Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, kernel_team@skhynix.com,
	honggyu.kim@sk.com, yunjeong.mun@sk.com,
	Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/mempolicy: Fix memory leaks in weighted interleave sysfs
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:36:55 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250321043701.928-1-rakie.kim@sk.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z9xJdP29XEz6CljB@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:59:32 -0400 Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 02:40:01PM +0900, Rakie Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:17:46 +0900 Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Gregory
> > 
> > I initially planned to separate this patch from the hotplug-related patch
> > series as an independent update. However, after reviewing the code following
> > Jonathan's suggestion to consolidate `kobject` and `node_attrs` into a single
> > struct, I realized that most of the intended functionality for Patch 2 was
> > already incorporated.
> > 
> > As a result, Patch 1 now only contains the `kobject_put` fix, while the
> > struct consolidation work has been included in Patch 2. Given the current
> > design, it seems more natural to keep Patch 1 and Patch 2 together as part
> > of the same patch series rather than separating them.
> > 
> > Rakie
> > 
> 
> The point of submitting separately was to backport this to LTS via
> -stable.  We probably still want this since it ostensibly solves a
> memory leak - even if the design is to support this work.
> 
> ~Gregory
> 

Patch 1 and Patch 2 are closely related, and I believe that both patches
need to be combined to fully support the functionality.

Initially, I thought that Patch 1 was the fix for the original issue and
considered it the candidate for a backport.
However, upon further reflection, I believe that all changes in Patch 1
through Patch 3 are necessary to fully address the underlying problem.

Therefore, I now think it makes more sense to merge Patch 1 and Patch 2
into a single patch, then renumber the current Patch 3 as Patch 2,
and treat the entire set as a proper -stable backport candidate.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this suggestion.

Rakie



  reply	other threads:[~2025-03-21  4:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-20  4:17 [PATCH v3 0/3] Enhance sysfs handling for memory hotplug in weighted interleave Rakie Kim
2025-03-20  4:17 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/mempolicy: Fix memory leaks in weighted interleave sysfs Rakie Kim
2025-03-20  5:40   ` Rakie Kim
2025-03-20 16:59     ` Gregory Price
2025-03-21  4:36       ` Rakie Kim [this message]
2025-03-21  4:53         ` Gregory Price
2025-03-21  5:06           ` Rakie Kim
2025-03-20 16:45   ` Joshua Hahn
2025-03-21  4:37     ` Rakie Kim
2025-03-21 14:03       ` Gregory Price
2025-03-24  8:47         ` Rakie Kim
2025-03-21 13:59   ` Gregory Price
2025-03-24 16:40   ` Markus Elfring
2025-03-25 10:27     ` Rakie Kim
2025-03-20  4:17 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] mm/mempolicy: Support dynamic sysfs updates for weighted interleave Rakie Kim
2025-03-21 14:09   ` Gregory Price
2025-03-24  8:48     ` Rakie Kim
2025-04-02 16:33   ` Dan Williams
2025-04-03  4:25     ` Rakie Kim
2025-03-20  4:17 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/mempolicy: Support memory hotplug in " Rakie Kim
2025-03-21 14:24   ` Gregory Price
2025-03-24  8:48     ` Rakie Kim
2025-03-24  8:54       ` Rakie Kim
2025-03-24 13:32         ` Gregory Price
2025-03-25 10:27           ` Rakie Kim

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=20250321043701.928-1-rakie.kim@sk.com \
    --to=rakie.kim@sk.com \
    --cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=gourry@gourry.net \
    --cc=honggyu.kim@sk.com \
    --cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel_team@skhynix.com \
    --cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=yunjeong.mun@sk.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