From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A59F44847 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:24:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=aj5XakvMrHZUrDyYKVsZg4rC5Dtcr4vUwdSNgZSmn+s=; b=pMRhqXKHxY19tsb24kiH5t+iBH SccspcKY28tjX0fKnR2ZRRC2blNPzjW0MmWycDo5xGTbHIk/f3u+Vcw8x5st+mpBQ2gJJjCNe3/bX 32UwHJgOKPT0dr3xRnPTuiSrITFINsSs5jcnwtwXbd5FtJt9iRBUwYaJmKn+XOEykNUIFZOvUeNJI z4mAEN5caUMMiYCArVPMHlWKqoNWxnayGQNbT3E30Jsnx8fispRJXc0jgkd1ZPml3ZwY9tgOjtoLh CEqA7l4LhT58lCWfZt2n63GNqXJCF19tsfITSlrOHt3f7J0HgauQ8aMQL0Dz82vulD/uQq1VYiLLT OMWQ3kuA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wBAuT-0000000CFMo-3ODQ; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:24:29 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([172.105.4.254]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wBAuR-0000000CFMb-3cMG for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:24:27 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D916024D; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:24:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2810BC19421; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:24:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1775823866; bh=u3shdn/VhTUrysknc+IWeX13Mypw2Gqe8IMtP46BvmE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YKHcdKXE2kz4m0NEBd5EKtByrIIew2xRPM9M6TUF00occZ4EyMKOt2YUdYVsHnCo0 fNSRX0fb0Hbd2twIm/dyttA2LN+TqLTdZ909pvkhZS8h7pGn7Yhva68ZtJqsZLZ/If tdguzE3v/3GvKP5hHIRnkjjVac850Gdb2uNM2zbSio5tgjmijdEdz+01rtEvdJNKjY QY9VKGe7uu/nk/E51BxqhEmmdYN1W/PvkHS3utdN+SbGU+hY3BJSyQa4VKOyVStKX+ 7rhSZO2S67XO/uptDkC1XS9crG8eNVR7QT+21pAsNytGil3CdbYboU0ETriEW7gqau PEplVxGXwpW0Q== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:24:16 +0100 From: Lorenzo Stoakes To: Usama Arif Cc: Andrew Morton , david@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, r@hev.cc, jack@suse.cz, ajd@linux.ibm.com, apopple@nvidia.com, baohua@kernel.org, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, brauner@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dev.jain@arm.com, kees@kernel.org, kevin.brodsky@arm.com, lance.yang@linux.dev, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, npache@redhat.com, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, rmclure@linux.ibm.com, rppt@kernel.org, surenb@google.com, vbabka@kernel.org, Al Viro , ziy@nvidia.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, kas@kernel.org, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, leitao@debian.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mm: improve large folio readahead and alignment for exec memory Message-ID: References: <20260402181326.3107102-1-usama.arif@linux.dev> <803a0c15-0a6a-4c00-b6b3-eaae56d5fc15@linux.dev> <5f99b289-629c-47c4-bef0-966d6678a2a8@linux.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5f99b289-629c-47c4-bef0-966d6678a2a8@linux.dev> X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote: > > > On 10/04/2026 12:57, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 12:55:42PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 02/04/2026 19:08, Usama Arif wrote: > >>>> v2 -> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260320140315.979307-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/ > >>>> - Take into account READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS for elf alignment by aligning > >>>> to HPAGE_PMD_SIZE limited to 2M (Rui) > >>>> - Reviewed-by tags for patch 1 from Kiryl and Jan > >>>> - Remove preferred_exec_order() (Jan) > >>>> - Change ra->order to HPAGE_PMD_ORDER if vma_pages(vma) >= HPAGE_PMD_NR > >>>> otherwise use exec_folio_order() with gfp &= ~__GFP_RECLAIM for > >>>> do_sync_mmap_readahead(). > >>>> - Change exec_folio_order() to return 2M (cont-pte size) for 64K base > >>>> page size for arm64. > >>>> - remove bprm->file NULL check (Matthew) > >>>> - Change filp to file (Matthew) > >>>> - Improve checking of p_vaddr and p_vaddr (Rui and Matthew) > >>>> > >>> > >>> Hello! > >>> > >>> Just wanted to check if there was any feedback/review on the latest > >>> revision? > >> > >> It's -rc7, this is definitely something for next cycle :) > >> > >> On my part, my upstream bandwidth has drastically reduced, and review is > >> probably going to have to be a hobbyist thing at least for now. > >> > >> Also, not to be mean but: > >> > >> $ git log -E -i --grep "(Reviewed|Acked)-by: Usama Arif" --oneline | wc -l > >> 21 > >> > >> So... :) > >> > >> Review in mm is very lop-sided, let's try to balance it out a bit! > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >> > >> Thanks, Lorenzo > > > > (Note that we're in a 'quiet period' from here until -rc1 of next cycle and > > won't be taking anything new until then. We plan to do this from around rc5 or > > rc6 of each cycle in future). > > Thanks! Just wanted to check, as I am always confused about this. Is it ok > to send patches for review for next release at this time? So that they > are in a good state when rc1 comes. I wanted to send PMD swap entries > for review after I am finished testing, but I want them for review for > next release. I think different people have different views on that :) I mean it's debateable whether having a glut of new material on day one of -rc1 is preferable to having a bunch come in that might or might not get lost along the way :) I personally feel it'd be better to send during the cycle window rather than before but I suspect others disagree with that! So from your point of view, feel free to do what you like, but maybe David + others would want to chime in with their opinions? Thanks, Lorenzo