On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 9:36 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 23.10.23 14:03, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 22.10.23 17:46, Peter Xu wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 07:16:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> These are rather the vibes I'm getting from Peter. "Why rename it, could > >>> confuse people because the original patches are old", "Why exclude it if it > >>> has been included in the original patches". Not the kind of reasoning I can > >>> relate to when it comes to upstreaming some patches. > >> > >> You can't blame anyone if you misunderstood and biased the question. > >> > >> The first question is definitely valid, even until now. You guys still > >> prefer to rename it, which I'm totally fine with. > >> > >> The 2nd question is wrong from your interpretation. That's not my point, > >> at least not starting from a few replies already. What I was asking for is > >> why such page movement between mm is dangerous. I don't think I get solid > >> answers even until now. > >> > >> Noticing "memcg is missing" is not an argument for "cross-mm is dangerous", > >> it's a review comment. Suren can address that. > >> > >> You'll propose a new feature that may tag an mm is not an argument either, > >> if it's not merged yet. We can also address that depending on what it is, > >> also on which lands earlier. > >> > >> It'll be good to discuss these details even in a single-mm support. Anyone > >> would like to add that can already refer to discussion in this thread. > >> > >> I hope I'm clear. > >> > > > > I said everything I had to say, go read what I wrote. > > Re-read your message after flying over first couple of paragraphs > previously a bit quick too quickly (can easily happen when I'm told that > I misunderstand questions and read them in a "biased" way). > > I'll happy to discuss cross-mm support once we actually need it. I just > don't see the need to spend any energy on that right now, without any > users on the horizon. > > [(a) I didn't blame anybody, I said that I don't understand the > reasoning. (b) I hope I made it clear that this is added complexity (and > not just currently dangerous) and so far I haven't heard a compelling > argument why we should do any of that or even spend our time discussing > that. (c) I never used "memcg is missing" as an argument for "cross-mm > is dangerous", all about added complexity without actual users. (d) "it > easily shows that there are cases where this will require extra work -- > without any current benefits" -- is IMHO a perfectly fine argument > against complexity that currently nobody needs] Thanks for the discussion, folks! I think posting the single-mm first and then following up with cross-mm and its test would help us move forward. That will provide functionality that is needed today quickly without unnecessary distractions and will give us more time to discuss cross-mm support. Also we will be able to test single-mm in isolation and make it more solid before moving onto cross-mm. I'll try to post the next version sometime this week. Thanks, Suren. > > -- > Cheers, > > David / dhildenb >
