[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x6u2afqqwqpoabtpq24n64owlwagolt63csvaibg33p6t2ywuf@beayabw66enb>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:33:01 +0100
From: Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
Cc: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@...okhin.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>,
Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>, Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@...gle.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>,
Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: skip folio_activate() for mlocked folios
On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 12:53:13PM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 13:25:26 +0000 Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@...okhin.com> wrote:
>
> > __mlock_folio() does not move folio to unevicable LRU, when
> > folio_activate() removes folio from LRU.
>
> A trivial opinion. So the user-visible issue is the incorrect meminfo, right?
The user-visible effect is that we unnecessary postpone moving pages to
unevictable LRU that lead to unexpected stats: Mlocked > Unevictable.
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Rephrase commit message: frame it in terms of unevicable LRU, not stat
> > accounting.
>
> Yet another trivial and personal opinion. Adding a link to the previous
> version could be helpful for reviewers like me.
You probably missed recent Linus rant on Link: tags :P
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists