[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250103182138.10b27a51129974c2237eca04@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:21:38 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: chenridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v4 0/7] mm/mglru: performance optimizations
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 08:59:08 +0800 chenridong <chenridong@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/1/3 8:03, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 21:35:31 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This series improves performance for some previously reported test
> >> cases. Most of the code changes gathered here has been floating on the
> >> mailing list [1][2]. They are now properly organized and have gone
> >> through various benchmarks on client and server devices, including
> >> Android, FIO, memcached, multiple VMs and MongoDB.
> >
> > This series has significant conflicts with the patch "mm: vmscan: retry
> > folios written back while isolated for traditional LRU". It appears
> > that "mm: vmscan: retry folios written back while isolated for
> > traditional LRU" is due for an update and that more discussion is
> > needed, so I shall drop this version of "mm: vmscan: retry folios
> > written back while isolated for traditional LRU" from mm-unstable.
>
> Hi, Andrew and Yu, does this mean I should resend a new version that
> fixes the conflict and updates the message?
Yes please. Against
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/'s
mm-unstable branch would be ideal.
Please already double-check that all review comments have been
addressed in an appropriate fashion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists