Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: record the mlocked page status to remove unnecessary lru drain

["Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@intel.com>]

On 10/20/2023 11:45 AM, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, that seems too hacky to me. I still prefer to rely on the migration process of the mlcock pages.
>>>
>>> BTW, Yosry tried to address the overlap of field lru and mlock_count:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230618065719.1363271-1-yosryahmed@google.com/
>>> But the lore doesn't group all the patches.
>>
>> Thanks for the information. I'd like to review and test if this work can
>> continue.
> 
> The motivation for this work was reviving the unevictable LRU for the
> memcg recharging RFC series [1]. However, that series was heavily
> criticized. I was not intending on following up on it.
> 
> If reworking the mlock_count is beneficial for other reasons, I am
> happy to respin it if the work needed to make it mergeable is minimal.
> Otherwise, I don't think I have the time to revisit (but feel free to
> pick up the patches if you'd like).
> 
> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230720070825.992023-1-yosryahmed@google.com/

I believe reworking the mlock_count is focus here. If there is no overlap
between lru and mlock_count, the whole logic of lru_add_drain() can be
removed here.

And I noticed the link:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230618065719.1363271-1-yosryahmed@google.com/
only has cover letter and the patches didn't grouped.


Regards
Yin, Fengwei