[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 09:46:21 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Move numa_balancing sysctls to its own file
On 2022/9/9 8:06, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 03:25:31PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>> The sysctl_numa_balancing_promote_rate_limit and sysctl_numa_balancing
>> are part of sched, move them to its own file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
> There is quite a bit of random cleanup on each kernel release
> for sysctls to do things like what you just did. Because of this it has its
> own tree to help avoid conflicts. Can you base your patches on the
> sysctl-testing branch here and re-submit:
Found this when reading memory tiering codeļ¼sure to re-submit based your
branch,
thanks.
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=sysctl-testing
>
> If testing goes fine, then I'd move this to sysctl-next which linux-next
> picks up for yet more testing.
>
> Are scheduling folks OK with this patch and me picking it up on the
> sysctl-next tree if all tests are a go?
>
> Luis
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists