> > 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
