From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Reduce tree_lock contention during swap and reclaim of a single file v1
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 08:31:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxcP_ydi9KCXmMQe5tv5GXw2QmTvnCQBM7ZjEuRgKiR4g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1473415175-20807-1-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> The progression of this series has been unsatisfactory.
Yeah, I have to say that I particularly don't like patch #1. It's some
rather nasty complexity for dubious gains, and holding the lock for
longer times might have downsides.
And the numbers seem to not necessarily be in favor of patch #3
either, which I would have otherwise been predisposed to like (ie it
looks fairly targeted and not very complex).
#2 seems trivially correct but largely irrelevant.
So I think this series is one of those "we need to find that it makes
a big positive impact" to make sense.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-09 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-09 9:59 Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm, vmscan: Batch removal of mappings under a single lock during reclaim Mel Gorman
2016-09-16 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-16 14:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-16 18:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-09-17 1:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-09 9:59 ` [PATCH 2/4] block, brd: Treat storage as non-rotational Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, vmscan: Stall kswapd if contending on tree_lock Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm, vmscan: Potentially stall direct reclaimers on tree_lock contention Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 15:31 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2016-09-09 16:19 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Reduce tree_lock contention during swap and reclaim of a single file v1 Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 18:16 ` Huang, Ying
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+55aFxcP_ydi9KCXmMQe5tv5GXw2QmTvnCQBM7ZjEuRgKiR4g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox