Re: [PATCH v7 00/15] mm/mglru: improve reclaim loop and dirty folio handling

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 11 May 2026 22:56:21 -0700 Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > Please include traditional LRU results for all of the following experiments as
> > > well (where it makes sense).
> > 
> > Sure, I've spawn a few test instances, was busy travelling last week.
> > That specific test machine is occupied so it might take a while.
> > 
> > A systematic test run takes roughly one or two days to complete for
> > one kernel version or config, e.g. the JS test takes at least 2 hours
> > to finish. Comparing versions/setups takes more time.
> > 
> 
> No worries, we have couple of weeks before the next merge window, so no urgency.

Well, no, not really.  Some schmuck wants to get our
stable-non-rebasing branch into upstreamable shape well before the next
merge window.

This series was issued a month ago!

Sorry to crack the whip, but let's please all be aware or our
upstreaming timing.

> I will go through the series in depth, hopefully there will not be a need for
> next version and in that case, please just resend the cover letter with the
> information you provided below and don't worry about the length of the cover
> letter.

That's a plan.

Happily, MGRLU changes are well-isolated so I was able to trivially
move this series to the tail of mm-unstable.

It isn't a problem at all for me to defer this until the next cycle -
please let me know.

I'd like to know this as early as possible so I can hide the series
until after -rc1.  We shouldn't have "not for next merge window"
material in there possibly invalidating our ongoing testing.