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

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 3:28 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.

Understood, will send a v5 including a simple two-liner for backports.