[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240507102241.0a09db69afd62efb5ce84f17@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 10:22:41 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Baolin Wang
<baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, willy@...radead.org, sj@...nel.org,
maskray@...gle.com, ziy@...dia.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
21cnbao@...il.com, mhocko@...e.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com,
zokeefe@...gle.com, shy828301@...il.com, xiehuan09@...il.com,
libang.li@...group.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
songmuchun@...edance.com, peterx@...hat.com, minchan@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm/rmap: integrate PMD-mapped folio splitting
into pagewalk loop
On Tue, 7 May 2024 16:38:07 +0800 Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com> wrote:
> > > Yep, I'll also set pvmw.ptl to NULL here if any corner cases arise.
> > >
> >
> > This series already resides in mm-stable. I asked Andrew to remove it
> > for now. If that doesn't work, we'll need fixup patches to address any
> > review feedback.
>
> I'll patiently wait Andrew's response, and then submit the next version or
> fixup patches accordingly.
Well, which series are we talking about? "mm/madvise: enhance
lazyfreeing with mTHP in madvise_free v10" or ""Reclaim lazyfree THP
without splitting v4" or both?
And how significant are the needed fixup patches?
And what is our confidence level after those fixups are in place?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists