Hi, Andrew, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:32:00 +0800 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi, Andrew, could you help me to check whether the overall design is >> reasonable? >> >> Hi, Hugh, Shaohua, Minchan and Rik, could you help me to review the >> swap part of the patchset? Especially [1/9], [3/9], [4/9], [5/9], >> [6/9], [9/9]. >> >> Hi, Andrea could you help me to review the THP part of the patchset? >> Especially [2/9], [7/9] and [8/9]. >> >> Hi, Johannes, Michal and Vladimir, I am not very confident about the >> memory cgroup part, especially [2/9]. Could you help me to review it? >> >> And for all, Any comment is welcome! >> >> >> Recently, the performance of the storage devices improved so fast that >> we cannot saturate the disk bandwidth with single logical CPU when do >> page swap out even on a high-end server machine. Because the >> performance of the storage device improved faster than that of single >> logical CPU. And it seems that the trend will not change in the near >> future. On the other hand, the THP becomes more and more popular >> because of increased memory size. So it becomes necessary to optimize >> THP swap performance. > > I'll merge this patchset for testing purposes, but I don't believe that > it has yet had sufficient review. And thanks for drawing our attention > to those parts where you believe close review is needed - that helps. Thanks a lot for your help! I believe the patchset will be better tested in -mm tree. And hope people will have time to review it more closely. Best Regards, Huang, Ying -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
