From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-180.mta1.migadu.com (out-180.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDAB83D333F for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:19:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775823572; cv=none; b=amM79NTuyfIWgmNe/57Gek5B+Z18Nw1T+12ZoUPPHoHceusFy9NZ6mb8Kp4k/2FOiiMUJ4sDqbDNTl6ooCr/P9PMLthpO0qGCn9jY/dNhvqPdAUhR6TpOIXHMCYX//8Mxg0jWumabO+Hjx6HpQ/A7UyexAaTh1Q9sWZa6a1VeIs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775823572; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CdKL5rcs2lQQ423mm64M2+knqEhsUUVpzPkOskOieog=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=WJyqXq1StW7fE3sIS22c2LNHqRY9o+SVv9Gkce5FGTkj/GBt9fTVRPG/NAfMUgGySJT9mDhUq40RnGPbsyfdqk+r4Qxz5OOrhKJc+Y5GXYXxUAHT7aOVYdCxBFkv6A3JtQjnlwm1S28A8RRWVGw+/aGN0FyNJsgLydm+uwlBxFg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=ItHIgZPX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.180 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="ItHIgZPX" Message-ID: <5f99b289-629c-47c4-bef0-966d6678a2a8@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1775823558; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xA0gQtLpnpN6dJllUvcccJ/r+mNlQ650rHe5aRjH1/Y=; b=ItHIgZPXvITZaz44MjQUvDrn8+360iGxPQ4SupGVPlQJSXbTrdOrEoo4Y8x9OckfubKKuC WCMKPWu6Y4cbfbIrxy7yYu6g7lZP/gF4pNlezFZTINd4MZl80c4szu9X77x7P2SVip02/X skUbST20k2vhZ6MlLVxYCHvrmnVFaWs= Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:19:08 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mm: improve large folio readahead and alignment for exec memory Content-Language: en-GB To: Lorenzo Stoakes 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 References: <20260402181326.3107102-1-usama.arif@linux.dev> <803a0c15-0a6a-4c00-b6b3-eaae56d5fc15@linux.dev> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Usama Arif In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT 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.