From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E9D1A5B9E; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 06:22:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783405362; cv=none; b=F2O5LGW1atI19iOFrphaFmUWLIlWoIIMfm7p/1inQMfleR1G/D8kagjahCAVZbCxh6UyHeN4u+4x/UtDa0bj8FaOwqNRZ4C6CuNn1sWn3/0HVd1ddZ5omhWW9QfoNouvoWFTxaAWo9FBhJFUrgUkV4vyPppCM4WVEMbxwCiO/zA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783405362; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Yzg4aBlbECE8VfBnkYY8UUb9ZY4/YQBi8Xtp2KomfiA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X1ppaRs5xHP7+QZ6lEcp6vwoBh+1V4EKXKeT29ZB99t5n+3sA50ORsF9Qk0L4QEf1gNoUJNzwcXSnFvfIqV7hwR1n2rOHDFpEg8ONyj2AsSd+hqGbOh4pgAmTt9xZSUZN2mT85js8mh7ceV4EsLIFbT5E+Qti1QiXdFDWQooIMI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=009saE9w; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="009saE9w" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=4fdRQ940ITSfdxaImPyI+kZnUXdvI5OwT6MhqFhki8Q=; b=009saE9wpY/exxAAfsqMTyCdxv X/cb8PjP3ymCT8/GOpLOt3iy4hccFZDXgEWHnezkm8fuLKWINsqt6Vw2lEz0R4cMkjm8Dq4SkSnt3 qTDRjAWPeV3QLedCumtuvoWzTC4aFifS+qm61kirjk9bmw3UTkna0EcPhB9VY/DryAud2koItS3Rz p0mn2R2g+L8PhYJK6FKitrL6XOWnHIun1mxMlHQsj93ROn1H47j4bNEfHLxEJTWCsti7ZtglEF5xY d6LiTohoLWgBb4q6jUWFeGDYo1jqy+OYw/suvehQP20ipVpbLNR56rgKnACIivNvvqFkXpC3LVaRP IKyE2zSQ==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wgzCY-0000000ECcs-0ofk; Tue, 07 Jul 2026 06:22:38 +0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 23:22:38 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Salvatore Dipietro Cc: hch@infradead.org, ritesh.list@gmail.com, abuehaze@amazon.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alisaidi@amazon.com, blakgeof@amazon.com, brauner@kernel.org, david@kernel.org, dipietro.salvatore@gmail.com, djwong@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, ljs@kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, rppt@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, vbabka@kernel.org, vbabka@suse.com, willy@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iomap: avoid compaction for costly folio order allocation Message-ID: References: <20260625091039.24501-1-dipiets@amazon.it> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 05:11:58AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 09:10:37AM +0000, Salvatore Dipietro wrote: > > Yes — all the patches in the result table are shared within this thread: > > > > v1 (original, iomap caller): The original PATCH 1/1 in this series > > Ritesh's suggestion (mm/filemap.c): Shared in Ritesh's reply on May 3rd [1] > > Matthew's suggestion (mm/filemap.c): Shared in Matthew's reply on April 4th [2] > > kcompactd background (mm/page_alloc.c): Shared in my reply on May 6th [3] > > The page_alloc.c change definitively seems like the right thing to do from > the high-level POV. It would also be nice to find a way to centralize > the logic for which flags to set in a central place as we have quite a > few other places that want to allocate large folios optimistically. Can you submit a formal patch for this? I.e. proper commit log, fixes tag, separate thread, etc.