From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D634DC3A589 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:21:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCD222DD6 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:21:25 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7FCD222DD6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 21B7B6B0277; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 21:21:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 1CCAF6B0278; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 21:21:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0E2E86B0279; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 21:21:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0228.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.228]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E036B0277 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 21:21:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BF01812D for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:21:24 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75844682088.22.screw19_465d51ce6ba43 X-HE-Tag: screw19_465d51ce6ba43 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2828 Received: from out30-42.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-42.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.42]) by imf41.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:21:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R141e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04394;MF=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=11;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0Ta0SZIU_1566350478; Received: from IT-FVFX43SYHV2H.local(mailfrom:alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0Ta0SZIU_1566350478) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:21:19 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] per memcg lru_lock To: Hugh Dickins , Michal Hocko Cc: Cgroups , LKML , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Shakeel Butt , Yu Zhao , Daniel Jordan References: <1566294517-86418-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20190820104532.GP3111@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Alex Shi Message-ID: <319c7a6c-6f1a-64c5-4920-e8279eb1e80b@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:21:18 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: > > 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