Re:

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

> Reply-To: "[PATCH 0/4] mm/list_lru": add.list_lru_shrink_walk_irq@mail.linuxfoundation.org.and.use.it ()

Well that's messed up.

On Tue,  3 Jul 2018 16:52:31 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:

> My intepretation of situtation is that Vladimir Davydon is fine patch #1
> and #2 of the series [0] but dislikes the irq argument and struct
> member. It has been suggested to use list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() instead
> the approach I went on in "mm: list_lru: Add lock_irq member to
> __list_lru_init()".
> 
> This series is based on the former two patches and introduces
> list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() (and makes the third patch of series
> obsolete).
> In patch 1-3 I tried a tiny cleanup so the different locking
> (spin_lock() vs spin_lock_irq()) is simply lifted to the caller of the
> function.
> 
> [0] The patch
>       mm: workingset: remove local_irq_disable() from count_shadow_nodes() 
>    and
>       mm: workingset: make shadow_lru_isolate() use locking suffix
> 

This isn't a very informative [0/n] changelog.  Some overall summary of
the patchset's objective, behaviour, use cases, testing results, etc.

I'm seeing significant conflicts with Kirill's "Improve shrink_slab()
scalability (old complexity was O(n^2), new is O(n))" series, which I
merged eight milliseconds ago.  Kirill's patchset is large but fairly
straightforward so I expect it's good for 4.18.  So I suggest we leave
things a week or more then please take a look at redoing this patchset
on top of that work?