> Reply-To: "[PATCH 0/4] mm/list_lru": add.list_lru_shrink_walk_irq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx () Well that's messed up. On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 16:52:31 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My intepretation of situtation is that Vladimir Davydon is fine patch #1 > and #2 of the series [0] but dislikes the irq argument and struct > member. It has been suggested to use list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() instead > the approach I went on in "mm: list_lru: Add lock_irq member to > __list_lru_init()". > > This series is based on the former two patches and introduces > list_lru_shrink_walk_irq() (and makes the third patch of series > obsolete). > In patch 1-3 I tried a tiny cleanup so the different locking > (spin_lock() vs spin_lock_irq()) is simply lifted to the caller of the > function. > > [0] The patch > mm: workingset: remove local_irq_disable() from count_shadow_nodes() > and > mm: workingset: make shadow_lru_isolate() use locking suffix > This isn't a very informative [0/n] changelog. Some overall summary of the patchset's objective, behaviour, use cases, testing results, etc. I'm seeing significant conflicts with Kirill's "Improve shrink_slab() scalability (old complexity was O(n^2), new is O(n))" series, which I merged eight milliseconds ago. Kirill's patchset is large but fairly straightforward so I expect it's good for 4.18. So I suggest we leave things a week or more then please take a look at redoing this patchset on top of that work?
