From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752777AbbL2Jn2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:43:28 -0500
Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com ([209.85.215.65]:33152 "EHLO
	mail-lf0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750906AbbL2JnX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 04:43:23 -0500
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:43:18 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linuxfoundation.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@virtuozzo.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: Rework virtual memory accounting
Message-ID: <20151229094318.GM2194@uranus>
References: <20151228211015.GL2194@uranus>
 <CA+55aFzxT02gGCAokDFich=kjsf1VtvL=i315Uk9p=HRrCAY5Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzxT02gGCAokDFich=kjsf1VtvL=i315Uk9p=HRrCAY5Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 02:22:23PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Really sorry for delays. Konstantin, I slightly updated the
> > changelog (to point where problem came from). Linus are you
> > fine with accounting not only anonymous memory in VmData?
> 
> The patch looks ok to me. I guess if somebody relies on old behavior
> we may have to tweak it a bit, but on the whole this looks sane and
> I'd be happy to merge it in the 4.5 merge window (and maybe even have
> it marked for stable if it works out)

Thank you!