Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Improving MGLRU

[Chen Ridong <chenridong@huaweicloud.com>]

On 2026/3/3 21:39, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 05:31:26PM -0800, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 9:56 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 03:54:22PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 01:25:33AM +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
>>>>> MGLRU has been introduced in the mainline for years, but we still have two LRUs
>>>>> today. There are many reasons MGLRU is still not the only LRU implementation in
>>>>> the kernel.
>>>>
>>>> To my mind, the biggest problem with MGLRU is that Google dumped it on us
>>>> and ran away.  Commit 44958000bada claimed that it was now maintained and
>>>> added three people as maintainers.  In the six months since that commit,
>>>> none of those three people have any commits in mm/!  This is a shameful
>>>> state of affairs.
>>>>
>>>> I say rip it out.
>>>
>>> I have very similar concerns. Though rather than ripping it out, I would like
>>> we put efforts in unifying the two reclaim mechanism (traditional & MGLRU) over
>>> improving MGLRU.
>>
>> Shakeel, I think this is a great idea. If you have any ideas around
>> low hanging fruit here, please share. I'm planning to invest much more
>> time here going forward, so I'd be happy to turn some ideas into
>> patches. :)
> 
> I think we can start with memcg LRU on which Chen (CCed) was working on. Also
> why not propose a lsfmm discussion on the topic, I am sure many folks will be
> interested.

Think you for cc.

I am very interested about this topic.

-- 
Best regards,
Ridong