From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Shi Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mm: clean up some lru related pieces Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:31:26 +0800 Message-ID: <56062aa9-bec7-6757-e49b-f94da141cb2c@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20200918030051.650890-1-yuzhao@google.com> <20200918210126.GA1118730@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Hugh Dickins , Yu Zhao Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , Chris Down , Yafang Shao , Vlastimil Babka , Huang Ying , Pankaj Gupta , Matthew Wilcox , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Minchan Kim , Jaewon Kim , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org =D4=DA 2020/9/19 =C9=CF=CE=E75:19, Hugh Dickins =D0=B4=B5=C0: >>>> 2.28.0.681.g6f77f65b4e-goog >>> Sorry, Yu, I may be out-of-line in sending this: but as you know, >>> Alex Shi has a long per-memcg lru_lock series playing in much the >>> same area (particularly conflicting in mm/swap.c and mm/vmscan.c): >>> a patchset that makes useful changes, that I'm very keen to help >>> into mmotm a.s.a.p (but not before I've completed diligence). >>> >>> We've put a lot of effort into its testing, I'm currently reviewing >>> it patch by patch (my general silence indicating that I'm busy on that, >>> but slow as ever): so I'm a bit discouraged to have its stability >>> potentially undermined by conflicting cleanups at this stage. >>> >>> If there's general agreement that your cleanups are safe and welcome >>> (Michal's initial reaction sheds some doubt on that), great: I hope >>> that Andrew can fast-track them into mmotm, then Alex rebase on top >>> of them, and I then re-test and re-review. >>> >>> But if that quick agreement is not forthcoming, may I ask you please >>> to hold back, and resend based on top of Alex's next posting? >> The per-memcg lru lock series seems a high priority, and I have >> absolutely no problem accommodate your request. > Many thanks! >=20 >> In return, may I ask you or Alex to review this series after you >> have finished with per-memcg lru lock (to make sure that I resolve >> all the conflicts correctly at least)? > Fair enough: I promise to do so. >=20 > And your rebasing will necessarily lead you to review some parts > of Alex's patchset, which will help us all too. >=20 > Andrew, Yu asked at the start: >>>> I see you have taken this: >>>> mm: use add_page_to_lru_list()/page_lru()/page_off_lru() >>>> Do you mind dropping it? > Dropping that for now will help too. Hi Hugh & Yu, Thanks for all your considerations! I will looking into this series after t= hing on lru_lock finished. Thanks a lot! Alex