linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] support large folio swap-out and swap-in for shmem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <475f0f2c-afc7-4225-809f-93c93f45c830@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:28:19 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: hughd@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org, david@...hat.com,
 wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, chrisl@...nel.org, ying.huang@...el.com,
 21cnbao@...il.com, ryan.roberts@....com, shy828301@...il.com,
 ziy@...dia.com, ioworker0@...il.com, da.gomez@...sung.com,
 p.raghav@...sung.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] support large folio swap-out and swap-in for shmem



On 2024/6/19 04:05, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:54:12 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
>> Shmem will support large folio allocation [1] [2] to get a better performance,
>> however, the memory reclaim still splits the precious large folios when trying
>> to swap-out shmem, which may lead to the memory fragmentation issue and can not
>> take advantage of the large folio for shmeme.
>>
>> Moreover, the swap code already supports for swapping out large folio without
>> split, and large folio swap-in[3] series is queued into mm-unstable branch.
>> Hence this patch set also supports the large folio swap-out and swap-in for
>> shmem.
> 
> I'll add this to mm-unstable for some exposure, but I wonder how much
> testing it will have recieved by the time the next merge window opens?

Thanks Andrew. I am fine with this series going to 6.12 if you are 
concerned about insufficient testing (and let's also wait for Hugh's 
comments). Since we (Daniel and I) have some follow-up patches that will 
rely on this swap series, hope this series can be tested as extensively 
as possible to ensure its stability in the mm branch.