linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/swap, memcg: Introduce infrastructure for cgroup-based swap priority

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: <aLgV3YF9uds7LC9T@yjaykim-PowerEdge-T330>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 19:18:05 +0900
From: YoungJun Park <youngjun.park@....com>
To: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
Cc: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
	roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
	muchun.song@...ux.dev, shikemeng@...weicloud.com,
	kasong@...cent.com, nphamcs@...il.com, bhe@...hat.com,
	baohua@...nel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gunho.lee@....com,
	iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, taejoon.song@....com,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/swap, memcg: Introduce infrastructure for
 cgroup-based swap priority

> Please accept the sincere apology from me.  I was grumpy, sorry about
> that. I was under pressure to be somewhere else but this email is
> taking longer than I expected to write. I let my bad temper get the
> better of me and I am sorry about that.
> 
> You might not have realized that the proposal you made has the same
> kind of buggy behavior for the usage case where the change of the
> parent and the child gets it.
> 
> One side note, I do want to rate limit the new proposals I have to
> defend against. On the other hand, when you make a proposal to change,
> you have no way to predict where I will consider it good or bad.
> Otherwise we don't need to have this discussion. My hash reply is
> uncalled for and I realized that now.
> 
> I am over it now, let's put this behind us and continue our discussion.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Chris

Hello Chris Li,

I received your mail and have been taking more time to think through the
discussion you raised, so I had not replied immediately.

Looking back at my proposals, I realized I kept sending out questions as
I was trying to align fully with your view and bring things up to patch
level quality. Considering you also have many other topics to think
about, I will take some time to review this subject myself and focus on
reducing communication overhead.

Over the past week you have been quick to review and very engaged, which
I greatly appreciate. I feel happy that our ideation has aligned to a
good extent, and my frequent questions came from being motivated to
bring this up to the same level of patch work as before as quickly as
possible. In hindsight, I realize this also reflected my own impatience.

I am also in the process of clarifying my thoughts by working out the
aligned parts at the code level. At the same time, I am considering how
this connects with the points we have discussed so far and the areas
where alignment is still incomplete.

Once my thoughts on your last review settle, I will send you my ideas
and any remaining questions. (almost done!)

Thank you again for your thoughtful reviews, and the respect I
have for your guidance throughout this discussion. 

Best regards,
Youngjun Park