On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Yu Zhao wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > I see you have taken this: > mm: use add_page_to_lru_list()/page_lru()/page_off_lru() > Do you mind dropping it? > > Michal asked to do a bit of additional work. So I thought I probably > should create a series to do more cleanups I've been meaning to. > > This series contains the change in the patch above and goes a few > more steps farther. It's intended to improve readability and should > not have any performance impacts. There are minor behavior changes in > terms of debugging and error reporting, which I have all highlighted > in the individual patches. All patches were properly tested on 5.8 > running Chrome OS, with various debug options turned on. > > Michal, > > Do you mind taking a looking at the entire series? > > Thank you. > > Yu Zhao (13): > mm: use add_page_to_lru_list() > mm: use page_off_lru() > mm: move __ClearPageLRU() into page_off_lru() > mm: shuffle lru list addition and deletion functions > mm: don't pass enum lru_list to lru list addition functions > mm: don't pass enum lru_list to trace_mm_lru_insertion() > mm: don't pass enum lru_list to del_page_from_lru_list() > mm: rename page_off_lru() to __clear_page_lru_flags() > mm: inline page_lru_base_type() > mm: VM_BUG_ON lru page flags > mm: inline __update_lru_size() > mm: make lruvec_lru_size() static > mm: enlarge the int parameter of update_lru_size() > > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 14 ++-- > include/linux/mm_inline.h | 115 ++++++++++++++------------------- > include/linux/mmzone.h | 2 - > include/linux/vmstat.h | 2 +- > include/trace/events/pagemap.h | 11 ++-- > mm/compaction.c | 2 +- > mm/memcontrol.c | 10 +-- > mm/mlock.c | 2 +- > mm/swap.c | 53 ++++++--------- > mm/vmscan.c | 28 +++----- > 10 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.28.0.681.g6f77f65b4e-goog
Sorry, Yu, I may be out-of-line in sending this: but as you know, Alex Shi has a long per-memcg lru_lock series playing in much the same area (particularly conflicting in mm/swap.c and mm/vmscan.c): a patchset that makes useful changes, that I'm very keen to help into mmotm a.s.a.p (but not before I've completed diligence). We've put a lot of effort into its testing, I'm currently reviewing it patch by patch (my general silence indicating that I'm busy on that, but slow as ever): so I'm a bit discouraged to have its stability potentially undermined by conflicting cleanups at this stage. If there's general agreement that your cleanups are safe and welcome (Michal's initial reaction sheds some doubt on that), great: I hope that Andrew can fast-track them into mmotm, then Alex rebase on top of them, and I then re-test and re-review. But if that quick agreement is not forthcoming, may I ask you please to hold back, and resend based on top of Alex's next posting? Thanks, Hugh
