Re: [PATCH resend v6 10/30] mm: alloc_swap_folio: pass raw fault address to vma_alloc_folio

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 05:52:39PM -0400, Gregory Price wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 05:41:16PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 12:05:18PM -0400, Gregory Price wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 05:02:39AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Same change as the previous patch but for alloc_swap_folio:
> > > > pass vmf->address directly instead of ALIGN_DOWN(vmf->address, ...).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Starting to seem like this should all just get squashed into once patch.
> > > 
> > > ~Gregory
> > 
> > I mean I was told the patches are too big and too hard to review.
> > It's just same, independent changes made in several places.
> > Does it matter if they are squashed or not?
> >
> 
> Mostly i think the ordering of the patches thrashes from one set
> (alignment) to another set (USER_ADDR_NONE).  If all of one set was
> pulled ahead of the other then it would be easier to follow.
> 
> This particular set seemed trivial enough to just be one patch, but i
> don't think it matters all that much.
> 
> ~Gregory

I can reorder and put alignment before threading, sure, that's trivial:
these patches are all independent and cause no conflicts when
reordering.

So far the main work will be the hugetlb thing - it really parallels
what I did with post_alloc_hook, to think of it.
Will take me a couple of days, I'm behind on other tasks.


-- 
MST