linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20190715153527.86a3f6e65ecf5d501252dbf1@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 15:35:27 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:52:40 +0000 Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:

> > Hmm, this isn't really a common situation that I'd thought about, but it
> > seems reasonable to make the boundaries when in low reclaim to be between
> > min and low, rather than 0 and low. I'll add another patch with that. Thanks
>
> It's not a stopper, so I'm perfectly fine with a follow-up patch.

Did this happen?


I'm still trying to get this five month old patchset unstuck :(.  The
review status is: 

[1/3] mm, memcg: proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim
Acked-by: Johannes
Reviewed-by: Roman

[2/3] mm, memcg: make memory.emin the baseline for utilisation determination
Acked-by: Johannes

[3/3] mm, memcg: make scan aggression always exclude protection
Reviewed-by: Roman


I do have a note here that mhocko intended to take a closer look but I
don't recall whether that happened.

I could

a) say what the hell and merge them or
b) sit on them for another cycle or
c) drop them and ask Chris for a resend so we can start again.