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=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 46F5BC43464 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:33:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12D521D7B for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:33:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C12D521D7B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 07CC76B0055; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 0063A6B005A; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:33:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id DE8D06B005C; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:33:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0132.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.132]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BF86B0055 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin08.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6BC180AD80F for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:33:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77277937170.08.crate30_44113c42712f Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637A31819E621 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:33:25 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: crate30_44113c42712f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4080 Received: from out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.132]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:33:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R581e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04420;MF=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=22;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0U9MBOmq_1600475598; Received: from IT-FVFX43SYHV2H.lan(mailfrom:alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0U9MBOmq_1600475598) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:33:19 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mm: clean up some lru related pieces 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@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20200918030051.650890-1-yuzhao@google.com> <20200918210126.GA1118730@google.com> From: Alex Shi Message-ID: <56062aa9-bec7-6757-e49b-f94da141cb2c@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 08:31:26 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: =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 tha= t, >>> 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= thing on lru_lock finished. Thanks a lot! Alex