Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 14:12:33 -0700
From:   Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Michael Larabel <Michael@michaellarabel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, page-reclaim@google.com,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] Multigenerational LRU Framework
Message-ID: <YdYJwRQ22qgRsS63@google.com>
References: <20220104202227.2903605-1-yuzhao@google.com>
 <YdSuSHa/Vjl6bPkg@google.com>
 <CAHk-=whMbX+GUBY=Fyxo3r-XVvfNyFA+4hUJS7UxgYDxf9Wbcw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whMbX+GUBY=Fyxo3r-XVvfNyFA+4hUJS7UxgYDxf9Wbcw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 01:43:13PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:30 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > My goal is to get it merged asap so that users can reap the benefits
> > and I can push the sequels. Please examine the data provided -- I
> > think the unprecedented coverage and the magnitude of the improvements
> > warrant a green light.
> 
> I'll leave this to Andrew. I had some stylistic nits, but all the
> actual complexity is in that aging and eviction, and while I looked at
> the patches, I certainly couldn't make much of a judgement on them.
> 
> The proof is in the numbers, and they look fine, but who knows what
> happens when others test it. I don't see anything that looks worrisome
> per se, I just see the silly small things that made me go "Eww".

I appreciate your time, I'll address all your comments togather with
others' in the next spin, after I hear from Andrew. (I'm assuming he
will have comments too.)