Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:45:51 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.com,
        minchan@kernel.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, riel@surriel.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 113/131] mm: balance LRU lists based on relative thrashing
Message-ID: <20200609144551.GA452252@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20200603230303.kSkT62Lb5%akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <a60f7866-3b32-7a0e-5d0a-a48d77f845a8@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <a60f7866-3b32-7a0e-5d0a-a48d77f845a8@linux.alibaba.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 05:15:33PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2020/6/4 上午7:03, Andrew Morton 写道:
> >  
> > +	/* XXX: Move to lru_cache_add() when it supports new vs putback */
> 
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> Sorry for a bit lost, would you like to explain a bit more of your idea here?
> 
> > +	spin_lock_irq(&page_pgdat(page)->lru_lock);
> > +	lru_note_cost(page);
> > +	spin_unlock_irq(&page_pgdat(page)->lru_lock);
> > +
> 
> 
> What could we see here w/o the lru_lock?

It'll just be part of the existing LRU locking in
pagevec_lru_move_fn(), when the new pages are added to the LRU in
batch. See this older patch for example:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20160606194836.3624-6-hannes@cmpxchg.org/

I didn't include it in this series to reduce conflict with Joonsoo's
WIP series that also operates in this area and does something similar:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/3/63