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:   Wed, 9 Sep 2020 10:24:18 +0800
From:   Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, tj@kernel.org,
        khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com,
        willy@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, lkp@intel.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, shakeelb@google.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, richard.weiyang@gmail.com,
        kirill@shutemov.name, alexander.duyck@gmail.com,
        rong.a.chen@intel.com, mhocko@suse.com, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com,
        shy828301@gmail.com, vbabka@suse.cz, minchan@kernel.org, cai@lca.pw
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/32] per memcg lru_lock: reviews
Message-ID: <20200909022418.GA14584@L-31X9LVDL-1304.local>
Reply-To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
References: <1598273705-69124-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200824114204.cc796ca182db95809dd70a47@linux-foundation.org>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.2008241231460.1065@eggly.anvils>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.2008262301240.4405@eggly.anvils>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.2009081640070.7256@eggly.anvils>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2009081640070.7256@eggly.anvils>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 04:41:00PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
>[PATCH v18 06/32] mm/thp: narrow lru locking
>Why? What part does this play in the series? "narrow lru locking" can
>also be described as "widen page cache locking": you are changing the
>lock ordering, and not giving any reason to do so. This may be an
>excellent change, or it may be a terrible change: I find that usually
>lock ordering is forced upon us, and it's rare to meet an instance like
>this that could go either way, and I don't know myself how to judge it.
>
>I do want this commit to go in, partly because it has been present in
>all the testing we have done, and partly because I *can at last* see a
>logical advantage to it - it also nests lru_lock inside memcg->move_lock,
>allowing lock_page_memcg() to be used to stabilize page->mem_cgroup when
>getting per-memcg lru_lock - though only in one place, starting in v17,
>do you actually use that (and, warning: it's not used correctly there).
>
>I'm not very bothered by how the local_irq_disable() looks to RT: THP
>seems a very bad idea in an RT kernel.  Earlier I asked you to run this
>past Kirill and Matthew and Johannes: you did so, thank you, and Kirill
>has blessed it, and no one has nacked it, and I have not noticed any
>disadvantage from this change in lock ordering (documented in 23/32),
>so I'm now going to say
>
>Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>
>But I wish you could give some reason for it in the commit message!
>
>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
>Is that correct? Or Wei Yang suggested some part of it perhaps?
>

If my memory is correct, we had some offline discussion about this change.

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me