diff for duplicates of <Y5h+gHBneexFQcR3@cmpxchg.org> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index a89724f..1c23751 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 02:30:57PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: -> Mina Almasry <almasrymina-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> writes: +> Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com> writes: > -> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:55 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> wrote: +> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:55 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri 02-12-22 14:35:31, Mina Almasry wrote: > >> > The nodes= arg instructs the kernel to only scan the given nodes for @@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 02:30:57PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > >> > if it is called on a node without demotion targets, it will only attempt > >> > reclaim. > >> > -> >> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> -> >> > Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> +> >> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> +> >> > Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com> > >> > >> After discussion in [1] I have realized that I haven't really thought > >> through all the consequences of this patch and therefore I am retracting @@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 02:30:57PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > > this. Additionally in [2] Johannes also says it would be great if in > > the long term reclaim policy and demotion policy do not diverge. > > -> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y35fw2JSAeAddONg-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org/ -> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y36fIGFCFKiocAd6-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org/ +> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y35fw2JSAeAddONg@cmpxchg.org/ +> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y36fIGFCFKiocAd6@cmpxchg.org/ > > After these discussion, I think the solution maybe use different > interfaces for "proactive demote" and "proactive reclaim". That is, diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index db48018..cebc9c5 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -2,36 +2,35 @@ "ref\0Y5bsmpCyeryu3Zz1@dhcp22.suse.cz\0" "ref\0CAHS8izM-XdLgFrQ1k13X-4YrK=JGayRXV_G3c3Qh4NLKP7cH_g@mail.gmail.com\0" "ref\087k02volwe.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com\0" - "ref\087k02volwe.fsf-fFUE1NP8JkzwuUmzmnQr+vooFf0ArEBIu+b9c/7xato@public.gmane.org\0" - "From\0Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>\0" + "From\0Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>\0" "Subject\0Re: [PATCH v3] mm: Add nodes= arg to memory.reclaim\0" "Date\0Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:30:40 +0100\0" "To\0Huang" - " Ying <ying.huang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>\0" - "Cc\0Mina Almasry <almasrymina-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>" - Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> - Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> - Zefan Li <lizefan.x-EC8Uxl6Npydl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> - Jonathan Corbet <corbet-T1hC0tSOHrs@public.gmane.org> - Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org> - Shakeel Butt <shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> - Muchun Song <songmuchun-EC8Uxl6Npydl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> - Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> - Yang Shi <yang.shi-KPsoFbNs7GizrGE5bRqYAgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> - Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> - weixugc-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org - fvdl-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org - bagasdotme-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org - cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org - linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org - linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org - " linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org\0" + " Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>\0" + "Cc\0Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>" + Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> + Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> + Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com> + Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> + Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> + Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> + Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> + Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> + Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> + Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> + weixugc@google.com + fvdl@google.com + bagasdotme@gmail.com + cgroups@vger.kernel.org + linux-doc@vger.kernel.org + linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org + " linux-mm@kvack.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 02:30:57PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:\n" - "> Mina Almasry <almasrymina-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> writes:\n" + "> Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com> writes:\n" "> \n" - "> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:55 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> wrote:\n" + "> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 12:55 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:\n" "> >>\n" "> >> On Fri 02-12-22 14:35:31, Mina Almasry wrote:\n" "> >> > The nodes= arg instructs the kernel to only scan the given nodes for\n" @@ -73,8 +72,8 @@ "> >> > if it is called on a node without demotion targets, it will only attempt\n" "> >> > reclaim.\n" "> >> >\n" - "> >> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org>\n" - "> >> > Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>\n" + "> >> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>\n" + "> >> > Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>\n" "> >>\n" "> >> After discussion in [1] I have realized that I haven't really thought\n" "> >> through all the consequences of this patch and therefore I am retracting\n" @@ -114,8 +113,8 @@ "> > this. Additionally in [2] Johannes also says it would be great if in\n" "> > the long term reclaim policy and demotion policy do not diverge.\n" "> >\n" - "> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y35fw2JSAeAddONg-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org/\n" - "> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y36fIGFCFKiocAd6-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org/\n" + "> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y35fw2JSAeAddONg@cmpxchg.org/\n" + "> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y36fIGFCFKiocAd6@cmpxchg.org/\n" "> \n" "> After these discussion, I think the solution maybe use different\n" "> interfaces for \"proactive demote\" and \"proactive reclaim\". That is,\n" @@ -137,4 +136,4 @@ " they return -EINVAL if a) memory.reclaim gets passed only toptier\n" nodes or b) memory.demote gets passed any lasttier nodes? -fda433f4c6f8721cbe92ea169f1a5faa1d74a62d2e6bc6004110068d66af0d43 +935e9aed6908ffea72b9a475cbead06e4feb5bd49598b77b242bcba7c18bdcaf
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.