Re: [PATCH 0/4] mm/filemap: Limit page cache size to that supported by xarray

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 25.06.24 20:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:51:13 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I could split them and feed 1&2 into 6.10-rcX and 3&4 into 6.11-rc1.  A
problem with this approach is that we're putting a basically untested
combination into -stable: 1&2 might have bugs which were accidentally
fixed in 3&4.  A way to avoid this is to add cc:stable to all four
patches.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

Especially 4 should also be CC stable, so likely we should just do it
for all of them.

Fine.  A Fixes: for 3 & 4 would be good.  Otherwise we're potentially
asking for those to be backported further than 1 & 2, which seems
wrong.

4 is shmem fix, which likely dates back a bit longer.


Then again, by having different Fixes: in the various patches we're
suggesting that people split the patch series apart as they slot things
into the indicated places.  In other words, it's not a patch series at
all - it's a sprinkle of independent fixes.  Are we OK thinking of it
in that fashion?

The common themes is "pagecache cannot handle > order-11", #1-3 tackle "ordinary" file THP, #4 tackles shmem THP.

So I'm not sure we should be splitting it apart. It's just that shmem THP arrived before file THP :)

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux