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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3ED9C4332F for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 09:57:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229562AbiLQJ5L (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Dec 2022 04:57:11 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54966 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229496AbiLQJ5K (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Dec 2022 04:57:10 -0500 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DBB21D6; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 01:57:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEDBC608B2; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 09:57:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1671271027; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SoLRNQRrRqUNC0cGrLyDcGJ7nXiwl9BQ5rqnla0AEQg=; b=LzEcwgGhGGz8nj03JB5W4TiSbEKztKdG7hrQa5MIO0bwc5t2NC30MAA0U3vd2UhSj4T2Pz Tx7x3OMd+ZGReDRDIwwbXqxis7W8upuGmgfxuw87vV+OuG3oq1SRHDCSet4bS0DJKP0ag6 XpG0vDOWegM0J6b+oztGV495X5UdU2I= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A96941326D; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 09:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id St90JnOSnWOFNQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Sat, 17 Dec 2022 09:57:07 +0000 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 10:57:06 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Andrew Morton Cc: Mina Almasry , Tejun Heo , Zefan Li , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Muchun Song , Huang Ying , Yang Shi , Yosry Ahmed , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm: add nodes= arg to memory.reclaim" Message-ID: References: <20221202223533.1785418-1-almasrymina@google.com> <20221216101820.3f4a370af2c93d3c2e78ed8a@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221216101820.3f4a370af2c93d3c2e78ed8a@linux-foundation.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Fri 16-12-22 10:18:20, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 10:54:16 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I have noticed that the patch made it into Linus tree already. Can we > > please revert it because the semantic is not really clear and we should > > really not create yet another user API maintenance problem. > > Well dang. I was waiting for the discussion to converge, blissfully > unaware that the thing was sitting in mm-stable :( I guess the > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko > Acked-by: Shakeel Butt > Acked-by: Muchun Song > > fooled me. Hmm, as pointed out in http://lkml.kernel.org/r/Y5bsmpCyeryu3Zz1@dhcp22.suse.cz I've failed to see through all the consequences of the implementation. SO my bad here to add my ack before fully understanding all the implications. > I think it's a bit premature to revert at this stage. Possibly we can > get to the desired end state by modifying the existing code. Possibly > we can get to the desired end state by reverting this and by adding > something new. Sure if we can converge to a proper implementation during the rc phase then it would be ok. I cannot speak for others but at least for me upcoming 2 weeks would be mostly offline so I cannot really contribute much. A revert would be much more easier from the coordination POV IMHO. Also I do not think there is any strong reason to rush this in. I do not really see any major problems to have this extension in 6.2 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs