From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f198.google.com (mail-qk0-f198.google.com [209.85.220.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4CF6B025F for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:15:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk0-f198.google.com with SMTP id l20so2746762qkj.10 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:15:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id m10sor12483589qth.106.2018.01.10.10.15.02 for (Google Transport Security); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:15:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:14:59 -0800 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] printk: Console owner and waiter logic cleanup Message-ID: <20180110181459.GL3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <20180110132418.7080-1-pmladek@suse.com> <20180110140547.GZ3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180110130517.6ff91716@vmware.local.home> <20180110181252.GK3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180110181252.GK3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Petr Mladek , Sergey Senozhatsky , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Cong Wang , Dave Hansen , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Jan Kara , Mathieu Desnoyers , Tetsuo Handa , rostedt@home.goodmis.org, Byungchul Park , Sergey Senozhatsky , Pavel Machek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:12:52AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Steven. > > So, everything else on your message, sure. You do what you have to > do, but I really don't understand the following part, and this has > been the main source of frustration in the whole discussion. > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 01:05:17PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > You on the other hand are showing unrealistic scenarios, and crying > > that it's what you see in production, with no proof of it. > > I've explained the same scenario multiple times. Unless you're > assuming that I'm lying, it should be amply clear that the scenario is > unrealistic - we've been seeing them taking place repeatedly for quite > a while. Oops, I meant to write "not unrealistic". Anyways, if you think I'm lying, please let me know. I can ask others who have been seeing the issue to join the thread. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org