From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lgeamrelo07.lge.com (lgeamrelo07.lge.com [156.147.51.103]) (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 E84402AE66 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 10:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.147.51.103 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756894696; cv=none; b=EyDqQArUGJOUQltEaKPj0KKIacF/4mbyfrOhDBvm942z61kOInU5/LwekhYmksecxGmW7SxrFkxdoRPVIBdQiquB1fMI04ve5WxvIzDFT4xArLGaCzGljslwt7BaS5djIYH6iGl13pm+GFucpoJVw6yVFLXJbRYcUZZA5vOzeZM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756894696; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JTAdy5ooCiF98ATSrVgfVIiPe1LVEOpn0Bo4qlQvPk0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YiZsIuYPo2mYJ3Xt7Up6Pipmes0clVCEOd42OY9+sN2cDSZ1R6wfxB6wdOCEur+CI2e6ksLALpmAkQfXbMBdlrEx+BTo1LXYcrBuvAvCGDWa0SiFGf9Vna65fOO6CINyGgakXAJmCHv3haPNK9QUxcaDA8RR7xQBq043grTWYLk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lge.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lge.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.147.51.103 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lge.com Received: from unknown (HELO yjaykim-PowerEdge-T330) (10.177.112.156) by 156.147.51.103 with ESMTP; 3 Sep 2025 19:18:05 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.112.156 X-Original-MAILFROM: youngjun.park@lge.com Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 19:18:05 +0900 From: YoungJun Park To: Chris Li Cc: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= , akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, muchun.song@linux.dev, shikemeng@huaweicloud.com, kasong@tencent.com, nphamcs@gmail.com, bhe@redhat.com, baohua@kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gunho.lee@lge.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, taejoon.song@lge.com, Matthew Wilcox , David Hildenbrand , Kairui Song Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/swap, memcg: Introduce infrastructure for cgroup-based swap priority Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: > Please accept the sincere apology from me. I was grumpy, sorry about > that. I was under pressure to be somewhere else but this email is > taking longer than I expected to write. I let my bad temper get the > better of me and I am sorry about that. > > You might not have realized that the proposal you made has the same > kind of buggy behavior for the usage case where the change of the > parent and the child gets it. > > One side note, I do want to rate limit the new proposals I have to > defend against. On the other hand, when you make a proposal to change, > you have no way to predict where I will consider it good or bad. > Otherwise we don't need to have this discussion. My hash reply is > uncalled for and I realized that now. > > I am over it now, let's put this behind us and continue our discussion. > > Best regards, > > Chris Hello Chris Li, I received your mail and have been taking more time to think through the discussion you raised, so I had not replied immediately. Looking back at my proposals, I realized I kept sending out questions as I was trying to align fully with your view and bring things up to patch level quality. Considering you also have many other topics to think about, I will take some time to review this subject myself and focus on reducing communication overhead. Over the past week you have been quick to review and very engaged, which I greatly appreciate. I feel happy that our ideation has aligned to a good extent, and my frequent questions came from being motivated to bring this up to the same level of patch work as before as quickly as possible. In hindsight, I realize this also reflected my own impatience. I am also in the process of clarifying my thoughts by working out the aligned parts at the code level. At the same time, I am considering how this connects with the points we have discussed so far and the areas where alignment is still incomplete. Once my thoughts on your last review settle, I will send you my ideas and any remaining questions. (almost done!) Thank you again for your thoughtful reviews, and the respect I have for your guidance throughout this discussion. Best regards, Youngjun Park