Re: [PATCH v10 00/14] Multi-Gen LRU Framework

[Yu Zhao]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 2:31 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Yu,
>
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 21:24:27 -0600 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Can you please include this patchset in linux-next? Git repo for you to fetch:
> >
> > https://linux-mm.googlesource.com/mglru for-linux-next
>
> I get a message saying "This repository is empty. Push to it to show
> branches and history." :-(

Sorry about this. It should work now.

> > My goal is to get additional test coverage before I send a pull
> > request for 5.19 to Linus.
>
> Good idea :-)
>
> > I've explored all avenues, but ultimately I've failed to rally
> > substantial support from the MM stakeholders [1]. There are no pending
> > technical issues against this patchset [2]. What is more concerning
> > are the fundamental disagreements on priorities, methodologies, etc.
> > that are not specific to this patchset and have been hindering our
> > progress as a collective. (Cheers to the mutual dissatisfaction.)
>
> I have not been following the discussion as I am not an mm person, but
> this is not a good sign.
>
> > While we plan to discuss those issues during the LSFMM next month, it
> > doesn't seem reasonable to leave this patchset hanging in the air,
> > since it has reached its maturity a while ago and there are strong
> > demands from downstream kernels as well as a large user base. Thus I
> > sent that pull request to Linus a couple of weeks ago, implying that
> > he would have to make the final decision soon.
> >
> > I hope this gives enough background about what's been going on with
> > this patchset. If you decide to take it and it causes you any
> > troubles, please feel free to yell at me.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220104202227.2903605-1-yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220326010003.3155137-1-yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> I had a look at those threads and I guess things are better that your
> comment above implies.
>
> So, a couple of questions:
>
> Have you done a trial merge with a current linux-next tree to see what
> sort of mess/pain we may already be in?

Yes, the repo I prepared for you is based on the latest linux-next.
There shouldn't be any conflicts.

> Is it all stable enough now that it could be sent as a patch series for
> Andrew to include in mmotm (with perhaps just smallish followup patches)?

Yes, on multiple occasions, e.g., [1][2][3], I've claimed this
patchset has an unprecedented test coverage and nobody has proven
otherwise so far.

Andrew suggested a cycle in linux-next [4]. So here we are :)

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/YdSuSHa%2FVjl6bPkg@xxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/YdiKVJlClB3h1Kmg@xxxxxxxxxx/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/YgR+MfXjpg82QyBT@xxxxxxxxxx/
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220326134928.ad739eeecd5d0855dbdc6257@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/