linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] mm/lru: add per lruvec lock for memcg

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 04:08:15 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] mm/lru: add per lruvec lock for memcg

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:44:57AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2019/11/16 下午2:28, Shakeel Butt 写道:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 7:15 PM Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently memcg still use per node pgdat->lru_lock to guard its lruvec.
> >> That causes some lru_lock contention in a high container density system.
> >>
> >> If we can use per lruvec lock, that could relief much of the lru_lock
> >> contention.
> >>
> >> The later patches will replace the pgdat->lru_lock with lruvec->lru_lock
> >> and show the performance benefit by benchmarks.
> > 
> > Merge this patch with actual usage. No need to have a separate patch.
> 
> Thanks for comment, Shakeel!
> 
> Yes, but considering the 3rd, huge and un-splitable patch of actully replacing, I'd rather to pull sth out from 
> it. Ty to make patches a bit more readable, Do you think so?

This method of splitting the patches doesn't help with the reviewability of
the patch series.