On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:35:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:52:40 +0000 Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> 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 forgot to send out the actual ack-tag on #, so I just did. I was
involved in the discussions that led to that patch, the code looks
good to me, and it's what we've been using internally for a while
without any hiccups.
> I do have a note here that mhocko intended to take a closer look but I
> don't recall whether that happened.
Michal acked #3 in 20190530065111.GC6703@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Afaik not the
others, but #3 also doesn't make a whole lot of sense without #1...
> 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.
Michal, would you have time to take another look this week? Otherwise,
I think everyone who would review them has done so.
