From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A41445041C; Thu, 8 Oct 2026 22:58:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791500326; cv=none; b=g+siSr3RWkg0L/bbZL8AMtFh8RyaYKweRqbP9PXJbaZcagRaP5yO2+m5Cpy2EO6AfTKBYTsf993BGv+L4v+geDx6RteeGjXS/wXqkMCcH772Ojl62EssuKqgw51FcdJPkX9XUJkOE0lwTiT5eHKcY4h/oNY6lb33CQ1joNKygG4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791500326; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dfD+bJF9h7dLTRCLt8lHJBwiu1mQ2/5+5VLsZj+oO7Y=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=A1/RZeMT2pKyKH9qiyxM0Pj9ZOf2TxQ6LWLePrOC+lpOq/gon0kQBJpX2WoqDelNu7a8RFWUjbsUJZTFGgw7SbbXbJB44+vofd1ZnIyPJRbqVSGOAVU2rgLTAbzx6xrCplOQV5zfFhLbvGztaNCwBpnTrtq9eiy+ExJ4APwmNng= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=VKM+cnEw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="VKM+cnEw" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C941692; Thu, 8 Oct 2026 15:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e132076.cambridge.arm.com (e132076.arm.com [10.2.197.107]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE7013F66F; Thu, 8 Oct 2026 15:58:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1791500324; bh=dfD+bJF9h7dLTRCLt8lHJBwiu1mQ2/5+5VLsZj+oO7Y=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VKM+cnEw6A5VPtIxfkjBJ57FpyKUJavXooSEDKXKjTLBZVNB4cqE65t76/E3uejpR R54GdldP3piNy5/ARTwtg1Ht+JI1IfRD2yZla88E3qS1NSK5GYGzq+pJczAg75MCEx UCPDpIiXt+BDS+PW9LP1sDJzUjbfM3Ag7F8RF7F0= From: J Louis Kaplan To: cel@kernel.org, dai.ngo@oracle.com, jlayton@kernel.org, neil@brown.name, okorniev@redhat.com, tom@talpey.com Cc: anna@kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, leon@kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, trondmy@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] sunrpc: Allocate svc request pages from large folios Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2026 23:58:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20261008225833.682794-1-Louis.Kaplan@arm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Given past experience with contention in the page free path, IMO > this one needs careful macro and micro benchmarking. Makes sense to me after reading through the links you posted in the other reply. > I wonder if this change should get merged first instead of last. > It's probably going to have broad impact and high risk, and will > need testing across all hardware platforms and on large- and small- > memory configurations. Happy to do that. Should I consider a separate single-commit submission for this change?