On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:48 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:46:30 -0700 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > But the key question remains: how desirable is a backport? > > > > > > Looking at the changelogs I'm not seeing a clear statement of the > > > impact upon real-world users' real-world workloads. (This is a hint). > > > So I am unable to judge. > > > > > > Please share your thoughts on this. > > > > I think it's nice to have but not really important. It occasionally > > causes writes to memory.reclaim to report false positives and *might* > > cause unnecessary retrying when charging memory, but probably too rare > > to be a practical problem. > > > > Personally, I intend to backport to our kernel at Google because it's > > a simple enough fix and we have occasionally seen test flakiness > > without it. > > > > I have a reworked version of the series that only has 2 patches: > > - simple-two-liner-patch (actually 5 lines) > > - one patch including all refactoring squashed (introducing > > flush_reclaim_state() with the huge comment, introducing > > mm_account_reclaimed_pages(), and moving set_task_reclaim_state() > > around). > > > > Let me know if you want me to send it as v5, or leave the current v4 > > if you think backporting is not generally important. > > Let's have a look at that v5 and see what people think? Sent v5 [1]. Thanks Andrew! [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230405185427.1246289-1-yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx/
