[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190417114621.GF5878@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:46:21 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/workingset : judge file page activity via
timestamp
On Wed 17-04-19 19:36:21, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> sorry for the confusion. What I mean is the basic idea doesn't change
> as replacing the refault criteria from refault_distance to timestamp.
> But the detailed implementation changed a lot, including fix bugs,
> update the way of packing the timestamp, 32bit/64bit differentiation
> etc. So it makes sense for starting a new context.
Not really. My take away from the previous discussion is that Johannes
has questioned the timestamping approach itself. I wasn't following very
closely so I might be wrong here but if that is really the case then it
doesn't make much sense to improve the implementation if there is no
consensus on the approach itself.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists