[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <99DC1801-1ADC-488B-BA8D-736BCE4BA372@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 23:25:14 -0700
From: Buddy Lumpkin <buddy.lumpkin@...cle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, riel@...riel.com, mgorman@...e.de,
willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1 v2] vmscan: Support multiple kswapd threads per
node
> On Apr 4, 2018, at 11:10 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed 04-04-18 21:49:54, Buddy Lumpkin wrote:
>> v2:
>> - Make update_kswapd_threads_node less racy
>> - Handle locking for case where CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=n
>
> Please do not repost with such a small changes. It is much more
> important to sort out the big picture first and only then deal with
> minor implementation details. The more versions you post the more
> fragmented and messy the discussion will become.
>
> You will have to be patient because this is a rather big change and it
> will take _quite_ some time to get sorted.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>
Sorry about that, I actually had three people review my code internally,
then I managed to send out an old version. 100% guilty of submitting
code when I needed sleep. As for the change, that was in response
to a request from Andrew to make the update function less racy.
Should I resend a correct v2 now that the thread exists?
—Buddy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists