From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx168.postini.com [74.125.245.168]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 516C96B0101 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:28:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lagz14 with SMTP id z14so5373221lag.14 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120412000413.GB1787@cmpxchg.org> References: <1334181594-26671-1-git-send-email-yinghan@google.com> <20120412000413.GB1787@cmpxchg.org> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:28:25 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] memcg: revert current soft limit reclaim implementation From: Ying Han Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko , Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Rik van Riel , Hillf Danton , Hugh Dickins , Dan Magenheimer , linux-mm@kvack.org On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:59:54PM -0700, Ying Han wrote: >> This patch reverts all the existing softlimit reclaim implementations. > > This ordering makes it quite hard to revert individual patches after > merging in case they are faulty, because we end up with a tree state > that has no soft limit implementation at all, or a newly broken one. > > Could you reorder the series such that each patch leaves the tree in a > sane state? > > I.e. also don't introduce an endless loop in the page allocator > through one patch and fix it later in another one ;) Noone will be > able to remember these cross-dependencies in a couple of weeks. Make sense to me. I will try to make the ordering better for the next post :) --Ying > Thanks! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org