On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 14:05 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:43 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > This series provides an asynchronous means of reporting free guest pages > > to a hypervisor so that the memory associated with those pages can be > > dropped and reused by other processes and/or guests on the host. Using > > this it is possible to avoid unnecessary I/O to disk and greatly improve > > performance in the case of memory overcommit on the host. > > <snip> > > > A brief history on the background of free page reporting can be found at: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/29f43d5796feed0dec8e8bb98b187d9dac03b900.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Changes from v14: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191119214454.24996.66289.stgit@localhost.localdomain/ > > Renamed "unused page reporting" to "free page reporting" > > Updated code, kconfig, and patch descriptions > > Split out patch for __free_isolated_page > > Renamed function to __putback_isolated_page > > Rewrote core reporting functionality > > Added logic to reschedule worker in 2 seconds instead of run to completion > > Removed reported_pages statistics > > Removed REPORTING_REQUESTED bit used in zone flags > > Replaced page_reporting_dev_info refcount with state variable > > Removed scatterlist from page_reporting_dev_info > > Removed capacity from page reporting device > > Added dynamic scatterlist allocation/free at start/end of reporting process > > Updated __free_one_page so that reported pages are not always added to tail > > Added logic to handle error from report function > > Updated virtio-balloon patch that adds support for page reporting > > Updated patch description to try and highlight differences in approaches > > Updated logic to reflect that we cannot limit the scatterlist from device > > Added logic to return error from report function > > Moved documentation patch to end of patch set > > > > Changes from v15: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191205161928.19548.41654.stgit@localhost.localdomain/ > > Rebased on linux-next-20191219 > > Split out patches for budget and moving head to last page processed > > Updated budget code to reduce how much memory is reported per pass > > Added logic to also rotate the list if we exit due a page isolation failure > > Added migratetype as argument in __putback_isolated_page > > > > Changes from v16: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200103210509.29237.18426.stgit@localhost.localdomain/ > > Rebased on linux-next-20200122 > > Updated patch 2 to to account for removal of pr_info in __isolate_free_page > > Updated patch title for patches 7, 8, and 9 to use prefix mm/page_reporting > > No code changes other than conflict resolution for patch 2 > > So I thought I would put out a gentle nudge since it has been about 4 > weeks since v16 was submitted, a little over a week and a half for v16.1, > and I have yet to get any feedback on the code contained in the patchset. > Codewise nothing has changed from the v16 patchset other than rebasing it > off of the linux-next tree to resolve some merge conflicts that I saw > recently, and discussion around v16.1 was mostly about next steps and how > to deal with the page cache instead of discussing the code itself. > > The full patchset can be found at: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200122173040.6142.39116.stgit@localhost.localdomain/ > > I believe I still need review feedback for patches 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9. > > Thanks. > > - Alex So I had posted this patch set a few days before Linus's merge window opened. When I posted it the discussion was about what the follow-up on this patch set will be in terms of putting pressure on the page cache to force it to shrink. However I didn't get any review comments on the code itself. My last understanding on this patch set is that I am waiting on patch feedback from Mel Gorman as he had the remaining requests that led to most of the changes in v15 and v16. I believe I have addressed them, but I don't believe he has had a chance to review them. I am wondering now if it is still possible to either get it reviewed and/or applied without reposting, or do I need to repost it since it has been several weeks since I submitted it? The patch set still applies to the linux-next tree without any issues. Thanks. - Alex
