Re: [PATCH v10 00/14] Multi-Gen LRU Framework

From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
	Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Michael Larabel <Michael@michaellarabel.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Page Reclaim v2 <page-reclaim@google.com>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/14] Multi-Gen LRU Framework
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 03:08:06 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOUHufYdeDV=caQvRv_g0rrPjTm29f0_bCOQJpr+qcFO+vpK6g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220407183112.2cb5b627@canb.auug.org.au>

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 2:31 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Yu,
>
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 21:24:27 -0600 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can you please include this patchset in linux-next? Git repo for you to fetch:
> >
> > https://linux-mm.googlesource.com/mglru for-linux-next
>
> I get a message saying "This repository is empty. Push to it to show
> branches and history." :-(

Sorry about that

> > My goal is to get additional test coverage before I send a pull
> > request for 5.19 to Linus.
>
> Good idea :-)
>
> > I've explored all avenues, but ultimately I've failed to rally
> > substantial support from the MM stakeholders [1]. There are no pending
> > technical issues against this patchset [2]. What is more concerning
> > are the fundamental disagreements on priorities, methodologies, etc.
> > that are not specific to this patchset and have been hindering our
> > progress as a collective. (Cheers to the mutual dissatisfaction.)
>
> I have not been following the discussion as I am not an mm person, but
> this is not a good sign.
>
> > While we plan to discuss those issues during the LSFMM next month, it
> > doesn't seem reasonable to leave this patchset hanging in the air,
> > since it has reached its maturity a while ago and there are strong
> > demands from downstream kernels as well as a large user base. Thus I
> > sent that pull request to Linus a couple of weeks ago, implying that
> > he would have to make the final decision soon.
> >
> > I hope this gives enough background about what's been going on with
> > this patchset. If you decide to take it and it causes you any
> > troubles, please feel free to yell at me.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220104202227.2903605-1-yuzhao@google.com/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220326010003.3155137-1-yuzhao@google.com/
>
> I had a look at those threads and I guess things are better that your
> comment above implies.
>
> So, a couple of questions:
>
> Have you done a trial merge with a current linux-next tree to see what
> sort of mess/pain we may already be in?
>
> Is it all stable enough now that it could be sent as a patch series for
> Andrew to include in mmotm (with perhaps just smallish followup patches)?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell