From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995BAC43464 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 21:01:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1882311D for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 21:01:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="pcN7Q//I" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0C1882311D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8F22D6B008C; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:01:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8C8D36B0093; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:01:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7DEBB6B0095; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:01:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0179.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.179]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6899D6B008C for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:01:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8B3248E for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 21:01:33 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77277403266.29.sky08_1e14fd82712e Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF522180868D5 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 21:01:32 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: sky08_1e14fd82712e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7200 Received: from mail-il1-f194.google.com (mail-il1-f194.google.com [209.85.166.194]) by imf37.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 21:01:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-f194.google.com with SMTP id t18so7673965ilp.5 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:01:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=gK5XsFJwjR3oBOvG/qkXacDHUsWYEbBlXXhB7nU1Ags=; b=pcN7Q//IQygz5FJBITdJVrxJvWq0Vm0gpULffWDjradPmXmYqjFqKoWw5t5ym2b7WF 5JwcUs9TGqqN+OKKYQOm7jmsFNoZTsG4999NWYiG1ZduRlD77SAh7ijt3RZoAYnJEU4c nGEQ2urcqmq68lZxEHpgpfGGRC5HISEn+1orSu9d/3bwgdZ9iYImNwTG+rrmnJBRoCrs pwZOYq55fGt4kJen3gnpAOUJ0GLWS7rFcbW3aOuYQnl/6jpxy/KSviHHupyLJ6sdyzws iy8uqFFL6WbcHU7//Cme8yFxA/phGZ4gbCrDmXiJ84kbRWOfRnSTaA9CJ0bsQZlsCXVW K67A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=gK5XsFJwjR3oBOvG/qkXacDHUsWYEbBlXXhB7nU1Ags=; b=L+i1K8Jfge59DFi9ahr6fYltcEkKsbNXz6a3Vgu/FTkG/nTUFoVsdrc7S9zgPJ8Gel KkLCylb/tU1VuL//DWThc3Z/tkPRI7C7iQG4zFX0xIHZKW3ke6vrguiAmDFrGeqXnEs0 S6rbzFhjEhj1iAafiXeWh1QiMhQQ+dSYT3sKaFBCXYnmTNTBBc7SHpJVItFQ4sz2nJ8f zB9ajE3WwTJrsMFOI7aQjPpkI2TxyPIs9V1rCBRKFnakQOGcMhpZgGrE+XPZHxhB9ZP/ 50hSMTjnsLIGt83c/JiMyt3Y2Ex/h85nkBk9lTEORlr0GoKO7BVF83iUOxxSgP5oQTX2 ho3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530E7r1om+XFv+jTEagWD7yDTBvCXHpDlQ6mhjUFwkQ94ace4Z9U LDE/cXCys1uTCyREgJ89iEC4qQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVnVuLlyjiuxOoFIg1EIYFneo1FDyst+YvS4rLzDGzl3letx9XWjVpMFScZNn64/p2AGTd8g== X-Received: by 2002:a92:c750:: with SMTP id y16mr1187041ilp.277.1600462891719; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:183:200:7220:84ff:fe09:2d90]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j20sm2243158ilq.6.2020.09.18.14.01.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:01:26 -0600 From: Yu Zhao To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Alex Shi , 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@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mm: clean up some lru related pieces Message-ID: <20200918210126.GA1118730@google.com> References: <20200918030051.650890-1-yuzhao@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 01:46:59PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Yu Zhao wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > I see you have taken this: > > mm: use add_page_to_lru_list()/page_lru()/page_off_lru() > > Do you mind dropping it? > > > > Michal asked to do a bit of additional work. So I thought I probably > > should create a series to do more cleanups I've been meaning to. > > > > This series contains the change in the patch above and goes a few > > more steps farther. It's intended to improve readability and should > > not have any performance impacts. There are minor behavior changes in > > terms of debugging and error reporting, which I have all highlighted > > in the individual patches. All patches were properly tested on 5.8 > > running Chrome OS, with various debug options turned on. > > > > Michal, > > > > Do you mind taking a looking at the entire series? > > > > Thank you. > > > > Yu Zhao (13): > > mm: use add_page_to_lru_list() > > mm: use page_off_lru() > > mm: move __ClearPageLRU() into page_off_lru() > > mm: shuffle lru list addition and deletion functions > > mm: don't pass enum lru_list to lru list addition functions > > mm: don't pass enum lru_list to trace_mm_lru_insertion() > > mm: don't pass enum lru_list to del_page_from_lru_list() > > mm: rename page_off_lru() to __clear_page_lru_flags() > > mm: inline page_lru_base_type() > > mm: VM_BUG_ON lru page flags > > mm: inline __update_lru_size() > > mm: make lruvec_lru_size() static > > mm: enlarge the int parameter of update_lru_size() > > > > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 14 ++-- > > include/linux/mm_inline.h | 115 ++++++++++++++------------------- > > include/linux/mmzone.h | 2 - > > include/linux/vmstat.h | 2 +- > > include/trace/events/pagemap.h | 11 ++-- > > mm/compaction.c | 2 +- > > mm/memcontrol.c | 10 +-- > > mm/mlock.c | 2 +- > > mm/swap.c | 53 ++++++--------- > > mm/vmscan.c | 28 +++----- > > 10 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 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. 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)?