From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: don't skip memory guarantee calculations
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:15:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180605101544.GB5464@castle> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180605090349.GW19202@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see
> > no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now and start the discussion
> > from scratch.
>
> I do not think this is ready for the current merge window. Sorry! I
> would really prefer to see the whole thing in one series to have a
> better picture.
Please, provide any specific reason for that. I appreciate your opinion,
but *I think* it's not an argument, seriously.
We've discussed the patchset back to March and I made several iterations
based on the received feedback. Later we had a separate discussion with Greg,
who proposed an alternative solution, which, unfortunately, had some serious
shortcomings. And, as I remember, some time ago we've discussed memory.min
with you.
And now you want to start from scratch without providing any reason.
I find it counter-productive, sorry.
Thanks!
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: don't skip memory guarantee calculations
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:15:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180605101544.GB5464@castle> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180605090349.GW19202@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 04-06-18 17:23:06, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm happy to discuss any concrete issues/concerns, but I really see
> > no reasons to drop it from the mm tree now and start the discussion
> > from scratch.
>
> I do not think this is ready for the current merge window. Sorry! I
> would really prefer to see the whole thing in one series to have a
> better picture.
Please, provide any specific reason for that. I appreciate your opinion,
but *I think* it's not an argument, seriously.
We've discussed the patchset back to March and I made several iterations
based on the received feedback. Later we had a separate discussion with Greg,
who proposed an alternative solution, which, unfortunately, had some serious
shortcomings. And, as I remember, some time ago we've discussed memory.min
with you.
And now you want to start from scratch without providing any reason.
I find it counter-productive, sorry.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-05 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-22 13:25 [PATCH 1/2] mm: propagate memory effective protection on setting memory.min/low Roman Gushchin
2018-05-22 13:25 ` Roman Gushchin
2018-05-22 13:25 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: don't skip memory guarantee calculations Roman Gushchin
2018-05-22 13:25 ` Roman Gushchin
2018-06-04 12:29 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-04 16:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2018-06-04 16:23 ` Roman Gushchin
2018-06-05 9:03 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-05 10:15 ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2018-06-05 10:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2018-06-05 10:28 ` Michal Hocko
2018-06-04 12:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: propagate memory effective protection on setting memory.min/low Michal Hocko
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=20180605101544.GB5464@castle \
--to=guro@fb.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.