[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30c35cd2-8167-d402-2c7e-94f5fcce0274@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:45:33 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm/shuffle: remove dynamic reconfiguration
On 16.06.20 14:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Add Dan]
Whops, dropped by mistake. Thanks for adding.
>
> On Tue 16-06-20 13:52:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Commit e900a918b098 ("mm: shuffle initial free memory to improve
>> memory-side-cache utilization") promised "autodetection of a
>> memory-side-cache (to be added in a follow-on patch)" over a year ago.
>>
>> The original series included patches [1], however, they were dropped
>> during review [2] to be followed-up later.
>>
>> Let's simplify for now and re-add when really (ever?) needed.
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/154510700291.1941238.817190985966612531.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/
>> [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/154690326478.676627.103843791978176914.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/
>>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
>> Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
>> Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>
> While I am not against removing this unused code I am really curious
> what is the future of the auto detection. Has this just fall through
> cracks or there are some more serious problem to make detection
> possible/reliable?
>From the bouncing mails I assume Keith - author of the original patches
in [1] - is no longer working at Intel (or I messed up :) "#5.1.0
Address rejected"). Maybe Dan can clarify what the future of this is.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists