Should I repost? (was: Re: [PATCH v16.1 0/9] mm / virtio: Provide support for free page reporting)

[Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 14:05 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:43 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > This series provides an asynchronous means of reporting free guest pages
> > to a hypervisor so that the memory associated with those pages can be
> > dropped and reused by other processes and/or guests on the host. Using
> > this it is possible to avoid unnecessary I/O to disk and greatly improve
> > performance in the case of memory overcommit on the host.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > A brief history on the background of free page reporting can be found at:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/29f43d5796feed0dec8e8bb98b187d9dac03b900.camel@linux.intel.com/
> > 
> > Changes from v14:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191119214454.24996.66289.stgit@localhost.localdomain/
> > Renamed "unused page reporting" to "free page reporting"
> >   Updated code, kconfig, and patch descriptions
> > Split out patch for __free_isolated_page
> >   Renamed function to __putback_isolated_page
> > Rewrote core reporting functionality
> >   Added logic to reschedule worker in 2 seconds instead of run to completion
> >   Removed reported_pages statistics
> >   Removed REPORTING_REQUESTED bit used in zone flags
> >   Replaced page_reporting_dev_info refcount with state variable
> >   Removed scatterlist from page_reporting_dev_info
> >   Removed capacity from page reporting device
> >   Added dynamic scatterlist allocation/free at start/end of reporting process
> >   Updated __free_one_page so that reported pages are not always added to tail
> >   Added logic to handle error from report function
> > Updated virtio-balloon patch that adds support for page reporting
> >   Updated patch description to try and highlight differences in approaches
> >   Updated logic to reflect that we cannot limit the scatterlist from device
> >   Added logic to return error from report function
> > Moved documentation patch to end of patch set
> > 
> > Changes from v15:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191205161928.19548.41654.stgit@localhost.localdomain/
> > Rebased on linux-next-20191219
> > Split out patches for budget and moving head to last page processed
> > Updated budget code to reduce how much memory is reported per pass
> > Added logic to also rotate the list if we exit due a page isolation failure
> > Added migratetype as argument in __putback_isolated_page
> > 
> > Changes from v16:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200103210509.29237.18426.stgit@localhost.localdomain/
> > Rebased on linux-next-20200122
> >   Updated patch 2 to to account for removal of pr_info in __isolate_free_page
> > Updated patch title for patches 7, 8, and 9 to use prefix mm/page_reporting
> > No code changes other than conflict resolution for patch 2
> 
> So I thought I would put out a gentle nudge since it has been about 4
> weeks since v16 was submitted, a little over a week and a half for v16.1,
> and I have yet to get any feedback on the code contained in the patchset.
> Codewise nothing has changed from the v16 patchset other than rebasing it
> off of the linux-next tree to resolve some merge conflicts that I saw
> recently, and discussion around v16.1 was mostly about next steps and how
> to deal with the page cache instead of discussing the code itself.
> 
> The full patchset can be found at:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200122173040.6142.39116.stgit@localhost.localdomain/
> 
> I believe I still need review feedback for patches 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - Alex

So I had posted this patch set a few days before Linus's merge window
opened. When I posted it the discussion was about what the follow-up on
this patch set will be in terms of putting pressure on the page cache to
force it to shrink. However I didn't get any review comments on the code
itself.

My last understanding on this patch set is that I am waiting on patch
feedback from Mel Gorman as he had the remaining requests that led to most
of the changes in v15 and v16. I believe I have addressed them, but I
don't believe he has had a chance to review them.

I am wondering now if it is still possible to either get it reviewed
and/or applied without reposting, or do I need to repost it since it has
been several weeks since I submitted it? The patch set still applies to
the linux-next tree without any issues.

Thanks.

- Alex