Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D08C433F5 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 17:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231383AbhKVR6s (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:58:48 -0500 Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.20]:42729 "EHLO wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239678AbhKVR6p (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:58:45 -0500 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2183201C3F; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap46 ([10.202.2.96]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:55:38 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=donacou.ch; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=cYX68/tlnyBJ5NTK8kDwRhrwensMZNH 1rRq5EtEsxJg=; b=JR4QLX6PmJCeeJG5PTVokYUz+hjko0ZBEXTofFB11T7kP5V NGOYsXgk3EZOndMm5tAeIWw/jrj9RT71Gpo0WiI4M9pe0hu3t3lKQUeBDrlo8C5M o5hDjgCXHhMyajCbCwzyWor1y0pez69t4tz3Xq1QHMQSuumAGVeVW9ohrFof19mz eqSmXPvmSPnB7/uMay7nlx+Q6J4X2EMfhxpZ/A0UEM3Mshc++MHLu9XzMW0n4FUD b+KfEdu+bWkpahzbWJKUSpQ926ktJN1nOgUhKFXchLAofEhtxHIpntftWQBfqPj3 0LO7g2znE0LDw09mo2wSM92NqVVJV80gGPs9Q6g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=cYX68/ tlnyBJ5NTK8kDwRhrwensMZNH1rRq5EtEsxJg=; b=nKw0WhAv/bihxTfTzquONb TTwocn0G+XI14kQqLPJ3od5Q/h83eAz/NvwySq3Sca1Cdk7cS6GCHN6p0dAuNRvN QaYCVPchkW3yF+K/TxmuMOWILsTiNMHiMqVNiPRtB/4hc9hEtdPP0GhUsMVwQL10 9vjQzVpYV9Le1fbfnoFM/EZLDLHnphoCLw5reFWjfcyTJW5RkOp49Hd7VsLd1Es0 Lj4FkYkP7JaXhKlaKMe41M7BCQSu9iBZeEUufFWbmwBQYMJejPjTcBYdgyAWe5uQ Sxg0XnDjA2xAdP3dmoJ4NCtJ5fkyTlxJD71Htp4jtXKdtmjkCpul2HMX/HWJO+Eg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrgeeggddutdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdetnhgu rhgvficuffhonhgrqdevohhutghhfdcuoegrnhgurhgvfiesughonhgrtghouhdrtghhqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvueegkeehudelhfeuvdefffelueegvdehueefgedtiefh ffetjeeutddtkefhudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpegrnhgurhgvfiesughonhgrtghouhdrtghh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9B7941EE0076; Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:55:36 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-1371-g2296cc3491-fm-20211109.003-g2296cc34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <8f219a64-a39f-45f0-a7ad-708a33888a3b@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20211028080813.15966-1-sir@cmpwn.com> <593aea3b-e4a4-65ce-0eda-cb3885ff81cd@gnuweeb.org> <20211115203530.62ff33fdae14927b48ef6e5f@linux-foundation.org> <20211116114727.601021d0763be1f1efe2a6f9@linux-foundation.org> <20211116133750.0f625f73a1e4843daf13b8f7@linux-foundation.org> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:55:16 -0500 From: "Andrew Dona-Couch" To: "David Hildenbrand" , "Andrew Morton" , "Drew DeVault" Cc: "Ammar Faizi" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, "io_uring Mailing List" , "Jens Axboe" , "Pavel Begunkov" , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase default MLOCK_LIMIT to 8 MiB Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Forgive me for jumping in to an already overburdened thread. But can someone pushing back on this clearly explain the issue with applying this patch? The only concerns I've heard are that it doesn't go far enough. That another strategy (that everyone seems to agree would be a fair bit more effort) could potentially achieve the same goal and then some. Isn't that exactly what's meant by "don't let perfection be the enemy of the good"? The saying is not talking about literal perfection -- the idea is that you make progress where you can, and that incremental progress and broader changes are not necessarily in conflict. This tiny patch could be a step in the right direction. Why does this thread need dozens of replies? Thanks, Andrew -- We all do better when we all do better. -Paul Wellstone