[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240507103843.d15414e356d60612f94ec6ce@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 10:38:43 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.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 19:33:05 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> See my other mail, "mm/madvise: enhance lazyfreeing with mTHP in
> madvise_free v10" is all acked/reviewed and good to go.
>
> >
> > And how significant are the needed fixup patches?
> >
> > And what is our confidence level after those fixups are in place?
>
> I'm afraid I won't have time to review this series this/next week, so I
> cannot tell. I already assumed this would not be 6.10 material.
OK, I've dropped the series "Reclaim lazyfree THP without splitting",
v4. Let's revisit in the next cycle.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists