Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Jul 2019 15:35:27 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: Proportional memory.{low,min} reclaim |
| |
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:52:40 +0000 Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.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.
| |