[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aWohobzAyFlYfyHM@hyeyoo>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:31:45 +0900
From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
To: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@...ux.dev>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, david@...nel.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
ziy@...dia.com, yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev, imran.f.khan@...cle.com,
kamalesh.babulal@...cle.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com,
yuanchu@...gle.com, weixugc@...gle.com, chenridong@...weicloud.com,
mkoutny@...e.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hamzamahfooz@...ux.microsoft.com, apais@...ux.microsoft.com,
lance.yang@...ux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/30] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()
On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 07:26:48PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
>
> In a subsequent patch, we'll reparent the LRU folios. The folios that are
> moved to the appropriate LRU list can undergo reparenting during the
> move_folios_to_lru() process. Hence, it's incorrect for the caller to hold
> a lruvec lock. Instead, we should utilize the more general interface of
> folio_lruvec_relock_irq() to obtain the correct lruvec lock.
>
> This patch involves only code refactoring and doesn't introduce any
> functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
> ---
Looks good to me,
Reviewed-by: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists