>
> Thanks for the Cc Michal. As Shakeel says, Google prodkernel has been
> using our per-memcg lru locks for 7 years or so. Yes, we did not come
> up with supporting performance data at the time of posting, nor since:
> I see Alex has done much better on that (though I haven't even glanced
> to see if +s are persuasive).
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/20/434
> was how ours was back then; some parts of that went in, then attached
> lrulock417.tar is how it was the last time I rebased, to v4.17.
>
> I'll set aside what I'm doing, and switch to rebasing ours to v5.3-rc
> and/or mmotm. Then compare with what Alex has, to see if there's any
> good reason to prefer one to the other: if no good reason to prefer ours,
> I doubt we shall bother to repost, but just use it as basis for helping
> to review or improve Alex's.
>
Thanks for you all! Very glad to see we are trying on same point. :)
Not only on per memcg lru_lock, there are much room on lru and page replacement
tunings. Anyway Hope to see your update and more review comments soon.
Thanks
Alex
