Re: [PATCH v7 00/15] mm/mglru: improve reclaim loop and dirty folio handling

[Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>]

On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 06:35:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2026 22:56:21 -0700 Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote:
> 
> > > > Please include traditional LRU results for all of the following experiments as
> > > > well (where it makes sense).
> > > 
> > > Sure, I've spawn a few test instances, was busy travelling last week.
> > > That specific test machine is occupied so it might take a while.
> > > 
> > > A systematic test run takes roughly one or two days to complete for
> > > one kernel version or config, e.g. the JS test takes at least 2 hours
> > > to finish. Comparing versions/setups takes more time.
> > > 
> > 
> > No worries, we have couple of weeks before the next merge window, so no urgency.
> 
> Well, no, not really.  Some schmuck wants to get our
> stable-non-rebasing branch into upstreamable shape well before the next
> merge window.
> 
> This series was issued a month ago!
> 
> Sorry to crack the whip, but let's please all be aware or our
> upstreaming timing.

Thanks for the reminder.

> 
> > I will go through the series in depth, hopefully there will not be a need for
> > next version and in that case, please just resend the cover letter with the
> > information you provided below and don't worry about the length of the cover
> > letter.
> 
> That's a plan.
> 
> Happily, MGRLU changes are well-isolated so I was able to trivially
> move this series to the tail of mm-unstable.
> 
> It isn't a problem at all for me to defer this until the next cycle -
> please let me know.

I am on it and will aim to be done by weekend.

> 
> I'd like to know this as early as possible so I can hide the series
> until after -rc1.  We shouldn't have "not for next merge window"
> material in there possibly invalidating our ongoing testing.

Ack.