Re: [PATCH] sched: Move numa_balancing sysctls to its own file

[Kefeng Wang]

On 2022/9/10 3:44, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 11:37:41AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > On 2022/9/9 9:46, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > > On 2022/9/9 8:06, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 03:25:31PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > > > > The sysctl_numa_balancing_promote_rate_limit and sysctl_numa_balancing
> > > > > are part of sched, move them to its own file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > There is quite a bit of random cleanup on each kernel release
> > > > for sysctls to do things like what you just did. Because of this it
> > > > has its
> > > > own tree to help avoid conflicts. Can you base your patches on the
> > > > sysctl-testing branch here and re-submit:
> > > Found this when reading memory tiering code，sure to re-submit based
> > > your branch,
> > >
> > > thanks.
> > >
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=sysctl-testing
> > Hi Luis，the numa_balancing_promote_rate_limit_MBps from commit 1db91dd846e0
> > “memory tiering: rate limit NUMA migration throughput”only on
> > linux-next（from mm repo），
> >
> > 1）only send sysctl_numa_balancing changes based on your branch
> > or
> >
> > 2）queued this patch from mm repo if no objection， Cc'ed Andrew
> >
> > Which one do your like, or other options, thanks.
> 2) as that would give more testing to the new code as well. We can deal
> with merge conflicts on my tree later.

Thanks Luis.

Hi Andrew, could you help to pick it up to your tree :)

>    Luis
> .