Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: replace atomic_t with percpu_ref in mempolicy.

[Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Fri 13-01-23 17:20:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > This is really hard to follow. Without having the context from previous
> > discussions I would be completely lost. Please structure your cover
> > letter but also other patch in general in the form:
> > - what is the problem you would like to deal with
> > 	- want to introduce pidfd_set_mempolicy because XYZ
> > - what stands in the way
> > 	- mempolicy objects access constrains (reliance on operating in
> > 	  the current context)
> > 	- reference counting needs to be unconditional
> > 	- why regular reference counting is not sufficient (performance)
> > - what is this patchset proposing
> > 	- per cpu reference counting
> > 	- how is it implemented
> > - how is the patch series structured
> > 	- make the reference counting unconditional
> > 	- special case static (never released) policies
> > 	- replace standard ref counting by per-cpu reference counting
> 	- introduce pidfd_set_mempolicy
> > - how has this been tested?

Hi Michal, thanks for your review and suggestions.

I will follow the advice above to structure the letter and
split the patches smaller on next version.

Thanks.