Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] workload-specific and memory pressure-driven zswap writeback

[Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:31:17 -0700 Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > There are parts of the code that I would feel more comfortable if
> > > someone took a look at (which I mentioned in individual patches). So
> > > unless this happens in the next few days I wouldn't say so.
> > >
> > 
> > I'm not super familiar with the other series. How big is the dependency?
> > Looks like it's just a small part in the swapcache code right?
> > 
> > If this is the case, I feel like the best course of action is to rebase
> > the mempolicy patch series on top of mm-unstable, and resolve
> > this merge conflict.
> 
> OK, thanks.
> 
> Hugh, do you have time to look at rebasing on the mm-stable which I
> pushed out 15 minutes ago?

Okay, I'm on it - but (unless you insist otherwise) it's only a v3 of
the 10/12 "mempolicy: alloc_pages_mpol() for NUMA policy without vma"
that I'm expecting to send you - the rest should just cherry-pick in
cleanly.  I'll check that of course, but I'm afraid of losing details
(e.g. any Acks you've meanwhile added) if I resend the lot.

Hugh

> 
> > I will then send out v4 of the zswap shrinker,
> > rebased on top of the mempolicy patch series.
> > 
> > If this is not the case, one thing we can do is:
> > 
> > a) Fix bugs (there's one kernel test robot it seems)
> > b) Fix user-visible details (writeback counter for e.g)
> > 
> > and just merge the series for now. FWIW, this is an optional
> > feature and disabled by default. So performance optimization
> > and aesthetics change (list_lru_add() renaming etc.) can wait.
> > 
> > We can push out v4 by the end of today and early tomorrow
> > if all goes well. Then everyone can review and comment on it.