On 10/20/2023 11:45 AM, Yosry Ahmed wrote: >>>> >>>> IMHO, that seems too hacky to me. I still prefer to rely on the migration process of the mlcock pages. >>> >>> BTW, Yosry tried to address the overlap of field lru and mlock_count: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230618065719.1363271-1-yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>> But the lore doesn't group all the patches. >> >> Thanks for the information. I'd like to review and test if this work can >> continue. > > The motivation for this work was reviving the unevictable LRU for the > memcg recharging RFC series [1]. However, that series was heavily > criticized. I was not intending on following up on it. > > If reworking the mlock_count is beneficial for other reasons, I am > happy to respin it if the work needed to make it mergeable is minimal. > Otherwise, I don't think I have the time to revisit (but feel free to > pick up the patches if you'd like). > > [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230720070825.992023-1-yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx/ I believe reworking the mlock_count is focus here. If there is no overlap between lru and mlock_count, the whole logic of lru_add_drain() can be removed here. And I noticed the link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230618065719.1363271-1-yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx/ only has cover letter and the patches didn't grouped. Regards Yin, Fengwei
