Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] mm: process_mrelease: skip LRU movement for exclusive file folios

David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-04-29T13:07:08Z

On 4/29/26 12:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 29-04-26 11:09:55, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Unrelated stupid question: would things be clearer if we could rename
>> MMF_UNSTABLE to MMF_OOM_REAPING once figure out whether aborting fork() still
>> really needs it?
>
> While the oom is the only current kernel user of MMF_UNSTABLE (in a
> sense it sets the flag) the flag should denote that any page faults are
> reliable because it might fault in a fresh memory and user would lose
> the previous content without knowing that. Not sure MMF_OOM_REAPING
> would reflect that reality better.

We use it for failed fork() as well, but that's slightly different semantics (no
real page faults ever made sense).

Looking at the original patch here, using MMF_OOM_REAPING to modify zapping
behavior would be clearer than MMF_UNSTABLE, I guess.

But I see your point regarding kswapd interacting with this.

--
Cheers,

David