Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:46:21 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/workingset : judge file page activity via
 timestamp
Message-ID: <20190417114621.GF5878@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1555487246-15764-1-git-send-email-huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
 <CAGWkznFCy-Fm1WObEk77shPGALWhn5dWS3ZLXY77+q_4Yp6bAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGWkznEzRB2RPQEK5+4EYB73UYGMRbNNmMH-FyQqT2_en_q1+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190417110615.GC5878@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAGWkznH6MjCkKeAO_1jJ07Ze2E3KHem0aNZ_Vwf080Yg-4Ujbw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGWkznH6MjCkKeAO_1jJ07Ze2E3KHem0aNZ_Vwf080Yg-4Ujbw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 17-04-19 19:36:21, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> sorry for the confusion. What I mean is the basic idea doesn't change
> as replacing the refault criteria from refault_distance to timestamp.
> But the detailed implementation changed a lot, including fix bugs,
> update the way of packing the timestamp, 32bit/64bit differentiation
> etc. So it makes sense for starting a new context.

Not really. My take away from the previous discussion is that Johannes
has questioned the timestamping approach itself. I wasn't following very
closely so I might be wrong here but if that is really the case then it
doesn't make much sense to improve the implementation if there is no
consensus on the approach itself.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs