On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:41 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 25.06.24 22:34, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 11:01 PM Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> hi, Yang Shi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 08:44:37PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>> Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx>于2024年6月5日 周三19:16写道：
> >>>
> >>>> hi, Yang Shi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 04:53:56PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 9:54 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 7:02 AM Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> hi, Yang Shi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 01:57:06PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Oliver,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I just came up with a quick patch (just build test) per the
> >>>> discussion
> >>>>>>>> and attached, can you please to give it a try? Once it is
> >>>> verified, I
> >>>>>>>> will refine the patch and submit for review.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> what's the base of this patch? I tried to apply it upon efa7df3e3b or
> >>>>>>> v6.10-rc2. both failed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Its base is mm-unstable. The head commit is 8e06d6b9274d ("mm: add
> >>>>>> swappiness= arg to memory.reclaim"). Sorry for the confusion, I should
> >>>>>> have mentioned this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I just figured out a bug in the patch. Anyway, we are going to take a
> >>>>> different approach to fix the issue per the discussion. I already sent
> >>>>> the series to the mailing list. Please refer to
> >>>>>
> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240604234858.948986-1-yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >>>>
> >>>> got it. seems you will submit v2? should we wait v2 to do the tests?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The real fix is patch #1, that doesn’t need v2. So you just need to test
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> we've finished tests and confirmed patch #1 fixed the issue.
> >> we also tested upon patch #2, still clean.
> >
> > Thanks for testing. Sorry for the late reply, just came back from
> > vacation. It seems like Andrew didn't take the fix yet. I will resend
> > the patch with your tested-by tag. And I will drop the patch #2 since
> > it is just a clean up and I didn't receive any review comments. In
> > addition, the undergoing hugepd clean up may make this clean up
> > easier, so I will put the clean up on the back burner for now.
>
> Sorry, was expecting a v2 of the second patch. But agreed that posting
> the second patch separately is reasonable -- possibly after the hugepd
> stuff is gone for good.
I can revisit the cleanup once the hugepd stuff is done.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
