Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Ignore non-LRU-based reclaim in memcg reclaim

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 15:00:57 -0700 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ...
>
> > >
> > > Without refactoring the code that adds reclaim_state->reclaimed to
> > > scan_control->nr_reclaimed into a helper (flush_reclaim_state()), the
> > > change would need to be done in two places instead of one, and I
> > > wouldn't know where to put the huge comment.
> >
> > Well, all depends on how desirable it it that we backport.  If "not
> > desirable" then leave things as-is.  If at least "possibly desirable"
> > then a simple patch with the two changes and no elaborate comment will
> > suit.
> >
> 
> I would rather leave the current series as-is with an elaborate
> comment. I can send a separate single patch as a backport to stable if
> this is something that we usually do (though I am not sure how to
> format such patch).

-stable maintainers prefer to take something which has already been
accepted by Linus.

The series could be as simple as

simple-two-liner.patch
revert-simple-two-liner.patch
this-series-as-is.patch

simple-two-liner.patch goes into 6.3-rcX and -stable.  The other
patches into 6.4-rc1.