Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 04:08:15 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Arun KS <arunks@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] mm/lru: add per lruvec lock for memcg
Message-ID: <20191118120815.GF20752@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <1573874106-23802-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <1573874106-23802-2-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CALvZod77568+TozRXpERDDap__jbj+oJBY8zD=UBd40XNJC2zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e707fd66-16c2-8523-dd8b-860b5b6bb11d@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <e707fd66-16c2-8523-dd8b-860b5b6bb11d@linux.alibaba.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:44:57AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2019/11/16 下午2:28, Shakeel Butt 写道:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 7:15 PM Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently memcg still use per node pgdat->lru_lock to guard its lruvec.
> >> That causes some lru_lock contention in a high container density system.
> >>
> >> If we can use per lruvec lock, that could relief much of the lru_lock
> >> contention.
> >>
> >> The later patches will replace the pgdat->lru_lock with lruvec->lru_lock
> >> and show the performance benefit by benchmarks.
> > 
> > Merge this patch with actual usage. No need to have a separate patch.
> 
> Thanks for comment, Shakeel!
> 
> Yes, but considering the 3rd, huge and un-splitable patch of actully replacing, I'd rather to pull sth out from 
> it. Ty to make patches a bit more readable, Do you think so?

This method of splitting the patches doesn't help with the reviewability of
the patch series.