[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YdYIUAC0gopuy8r/@google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 14:06:24 -0700
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Michael Larabel <Michael@...haellarabel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
page-reclaim@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] Multigenerational LRU Framework
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 11:25:27AM +0000, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 03:53:07 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 08:55:34AM +0000, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > Hi Yu,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 13:22:19 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > I think similar works are already available out of the box with the latest
> > > mainline tree, though it might be suboptimal in some cases.
> >
> > Ok, I will sound harsh because I hate it when people challenge facts
> > while having no idea what they are talking about.
> >
> > Our jobs are help the leadership make best decisions by providing them
> > with facts, not feeding them crap.
>
> I was using the word "similar", to represent this is only for a rough concept
> level similarity, rather than detailed facts. But, seems it was not enough,
> sorry. Anyway, I will not talk more and thus disturb you having the important
> discussion with leaders here, as you are asking.
First of all, I want to apologize.
I detested what I read, and I still don't like "a rough concept level
similarity" sitting next to a factual statement. But as Borislav has
reminded me, my tone did cross the line. I should have had used an
objective approach to express my (very) different views.
I hope that's all water under the bridge now. And I do plan to carry
on with what I should have had done.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists