Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 19 Dec 2022 14:42:52 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, weixugc@google.com,
        fvdl@google.com, bagasdotme@gmail.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm: add nodes= arg to memory.reclaim"
Message-Id: <20221219144252.f3da256e75e176905346b4d1@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y52Scge3ynvn/mB4@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20221202223533.1785418-1-almasrymina@google.com>
        <Y5bsmpCyeryu3Zz1@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <Y5xASNe1x8cusiTx@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <20221216101820.3f4a370af2c93d3c2e78ed8a@linux-foundation.org>
        <Y52Scge3ynvn/mB4@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 10:57:06 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:

> > I think it's a bit premature to revert at this stage.  Possibly we can
> > get to the desired end state by modifying the existing code.  Possibly
> > we can get to the desired end state by reverting this and by adding
> > something new.
> 
> Sure if we can converge to a proper implementation during the rc phase
> then it would be ok. I cannot speak for others but at least for me
> upcoming 2 weeks would be mostly offline so I cannot really contribute
> much. A revert would be much more easier from the coordination POV IMHO.
> 
> Also I do not think there is any strong reason to rush this in. I do not
> really see any major problems to have this extension in 6.2

I'll queue the revert in mm-unstable with a plan to merge it upstream
around the -rc5 timeframe if there hasn't been resolution.

Please check Mina's issues with this revert's current changelog and
perhaps send along a revised one.