[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fb225c52-0d46-4a67-a897-f39b5c1b5554@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:52:06 +0800
From: "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
CC: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
<hughd@...gle.com>, <vbabka@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: record the mlocked page status to remove
unnecessary lru drain
On 10/20/2023 11:45 AM, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, that seems too hacky to me. I still prefer to rely on the migration process of the mlcock pages.
>>>
>>> BTW, Yosry tried to address the overlap of field lru and mlock_count:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230618065719.1363271-1-yosryahmed@google.com/
>>> But the lore doesn't group all the patches.
>>
>> Thanks for the information. I'd like to review and test if this work can
>> continue.
>
> The motivation for this work was reviving the unevictable LRU for the
> memcg recharging RFC series [1]. However, that series was heavily
> criticized. I was not intending on following up on it.
>
> If reworking the mlock_count is beneficial for other reasons, I am
> happy to respin it if the work needed to make it mergeable is minimal.
> Otherwise, I don't think I have the time to revisit (but feel free to
> pick up the patches if you'd like).
>
> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230720070825.992023-1-yosryahmed@google.com/
I believe reworking the mlock_count is focus here. If there is no overlap
between lru and mlock_count, the whole logic of lru_add_drain() can be
removed here.
And I noticed the link:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230618065719.1363271-1-yosryahmed@google.com/
only has cover letter and the patches didn't grouped.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists