From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Shi Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] per memcg lru_lock Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:21:18 +0800 Message-ID: <319c7a6c-6f1a-64c5-4920-e8279eb1e80b@linux.alibaba.com> References: <1566294517-86418-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20190820104532.GP3111@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Hugh Dickins , Michal Hocko Cc: Cgroups , LKML , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Shakeel Butt , Yu Zhao , Daniel Jordan > > Thanks for the Cc Michal. As Shakeel says, Google prodkernel has been > using our per-memcg lru locks for 7 years or so. Yes, we did not come > up with supporting performance data at the time of posting, nor since: > I see Alex has done much better on that (though I haven't even glanced > to see if +s are persuasive). > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/20/434 > was how ours was back then; some parts of that went in, then attached > lrulock417.tar is how it was the last time I rebased, to v4.17. > > I'll set aside what I'm doing, and switch to rebasing ours to v5.3-rc > and/or mmotm. Then compare with what Alex has, to see if there's any > good reason to prefer one to the other: if no good reason to prefer ours, > I doubt we shall bother to repost, but just use it as basis for helping > to review or improve Alex's. > Thanks for you all! Very glad to see we are trying on same point. :) Not only on per memcg lru_lock, there are much room on lru and page replacement tunings. Anyway Hope to see your update and more review comments soon. Thanks Alex