From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-171.mta0.migadu.com (out-171.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 206B1378D6E for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:16:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768238166; cv=none; b=S7/P6TlRU4dBROqzL27Y2R6bSc5vEQuU0lgNWOJKMaofP1kNrhvDCGm31uByn3eHTHbJ0by1ZWHJueLxwoGDK5sqTVK4Y9gsq+/DeJpOehQa71iQMq1J3/yJhMznH4ac4k6wqnnOgNQQetNYGXGS0d02iBDeufSRHJhGI9ODNBw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768238166; c=relaxed/simple; bh=U5/YI+ZjTewt/M8uJHnSgM6EbiiwOwSY292udpEViDk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZRT23V+rmbOrp5qRRviq1ph58CiwaY6qQ8+3Q9NLq2oHTOtg3G85CoqOsINDAiRn4/k6CHDvHUTMvsvb4POr8tmua/LCDujbs5FbWQTrSEQdjgZccJyiIRC6GiER3VTTncVdXhvNr3Xj+oTJ0nRAl1mbUCIewOwF0Ki4W27zXqg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=stHkps/v; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="stHkps/v" X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1768238152; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=nOW0Y2WwzMDSvX6e6gxQ8/DR62t44tPrvU+xaCSB0EY=; b=stHkps/vtcyG6bwWOUBgkwNhYjEhcBGwxkbKERZThkcxe+4bD7FI3ULaLSlI7vjxzdPSSi vYJA2OmB2MHtSwB39YOg5/B1ba/whGdM6Zoj9X09B1umme4/2htOtQch3w0BMCNUEFBdCc 3pdFzXXV499KIBrCMkX5srkf1HeNf1o= From: Roman Gushchin To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Dennis Zhou , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , Martin Liu , David Rientjes , christian.koenig@amd.com, Shakeel Butt , SeongJae Park , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Sweet Tea Dorminy , Lorenzo Stoakes , "Liam R . Howlett" , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Vlastimil Babka , Christian Brauner , Wei Yang , David Hildenbrand , Miaohe Lin , Al Viro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yu Zhao , Mateusz Guzik , Matthew Wilcox , Baolin Wang , Aboorva Devarajan Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] mm: Fix OOM killer inaccuracy on large many-core systems In-Reply-To: <6fbb17fe-f2b1-4233-9834-5a5020cd87b3@efficios.com> (Mathieu Desnoyers's message of "Sun, 11 Jan 2026 13:04:59 -0500") References: <20260111150249.1222944-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20260111094823.6fcb1fcceb7cfca2dd37b66e@linux-foundation.org> <6fbb17fe-f2b1-4233-9834-5a5020cd87b3@efficios.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:15:40 -0800 Message-ID: <871pjuu4zn.fsf@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Mathieu Desnoyers writes: > On 2026-01-11 12:48, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 10:02:46 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> >>> Notable changes for v12: >>> >>> - Reduce per-CPU counters memory allocation size to sizeof long >>> (fixing mixup with sizeof intermediate cache line aligned items). >>> - Use "long" counters types rather than "int". >>> - get_mm_counter_sum() returns a precise sum. >>> - Introduce and use functions to calculate the min/max possible precise >>> sum values associated with an approximate sum. >> May I ask, as an early adopter, what is your overall impression of >> the Gemini reviewbot? > > The review comments were all spot-on. This is the level of review I > would expect from a good reviewer who spends a significant amount of > effort digging into the proposed change to make sure the type limits > are OK for the intended purpose stated in the commit message and that > the intent stated in comments match the code. > > As a patch author, I find this feedback really useful. Is there > an easy way to get this feedback privately before sending out my > patches ? If you need to review a limited number of patches, the easiest way to use gemini cli/claude code or similar tools with a consumer grade subscription (most are $20/month these days). I maintain a pre-configured environment for Gemini: git@github.com:rgushchin/kengp.git , but it's not hard to hack something similar for other tools. Thanks!