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

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:48 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:46:30 -0700 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > But the key question remains: how desirable is a backport?
> > >
> > > Looking at the changelogs I'm not seeing a clear statement of the
> > > impact upon real-world users' real-world workloads.  (This is a hint).
> > > So I am unable to judge.
> > >
> > > Please share your thoughts on this.
> >
> > I think it's nice to have but not really important. It occasionally
> > causes writes to memory.reclaim to report false positives and *might*
> > cause unnecessary retrying when charging memory, but probably too rare
> > to be a practical problem.
> >
> > Personally, I intend to backport to our kernel at Google because it's
> > a simple enough fix and we have occasionally seen test flakiness
> > without it.
> >
> > I have a reworked version of the series that only has 2 patches:
> > - simple-two-liner-patch (actually 5 lines)
> > - one patch including all refactoring squashed (introducing
> > flush_reclaim_state() with the huge comment, introducing
> > mm_account_reclaimed_pages(), and moving set_task_reclaim_state()
> > around).
> >
> > Let me know if you want me to send it as v5, or leave the current v4
> > if you think backporting is not generally important.
>
> Let's have a look at that v5 and see what people think?

Sent v5 [1]. Thanks Andrew!

[1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230405185427.1246289-1-yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx/