Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] workload-specific and memory pressure-driven zswap writeback

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:31:17 -0700 Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > There are parts of the code that I would feel more comfortable if
> > someone took a look at (which I mentioned in individual patches). So
> > unless this happens in the next few days I wouldn't say so.
> >
> 
> I'm not super familiar with the other series. How big is the dependency?
> Looks like it's just a small part in the swapcache code right?
> 
> If this is the case, I feel like the best course of action is to rebase
> the mempolicy patch series on top of mm-unstable, and resolve
> this merge conflict.

OK, thanks.

Hugh, do you have time to look at rebasing on the mm-stable which I
pushed out 15 minutes ago?

> I will then send out v4 of the zswap shrinker,
> rebased on top of the mempolicy patch series.
> 
> If this is not the case, one thing we can do is:
> 
> a) Fix bugs (there's one kernel test robot it seems)
> b) Fix user-visible details (writeback counter for e.g)
> 
> and just merge the series for now. FWIW, this is an optional
> feature and disabled by default. So performance optimization
> and aesthetics change (list_lru_add() renaming etc.) can wait.
> 
> We can push out v4 by the end of today and early tomorrow
> if all goes well. Then everyone can review and comment on it.
>