On 17 Feb 2025, at 23:12, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:22:44 -0500 Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> >>> Thanks. The patch below should fix it. >>> >>> I am going to send V8, since >>> 1. there have been 4 fixes so far for V7, a new series would help people >>> review; >>> >>> 2. based on the discussion with you in THP cabal meeting, to >>> convert split_huge_page*() to use __folio_split(), the current >>> __folio_split() interface becomes awkward. Two changes are needed: >>> a) use in folio offset instead of struct page, since even in >>> truncate_inode_partial_folio() I needed to convert in folio offset >>> struct page to use my current interface; >>> b) split_huge_page*()'s caller might hold the page lock at a non-head >>> page, so an additional keep_lock_at_in_folio_offset is needed >>> to indicate which after-split folio should be kept locked after >>> split is done. >>> >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> I am planing to send V8 to collect all fixup patches I have so far plus >> the one below and change folio_split() interface and some of the code. >> What is your preferred method? >> >> 1. you can pick up the fixup below and I send a new set of patches to >> change folio_split(); >> >> 2. I collect a new V8 with all fixup patches and folio_split() change. >> >> For 1, the commit history might be messy due to my new folio_split() >> change. For 2, Minimize xa_node allocation during xarry split [1] >> patchset depends on patch 1 of this series, which adds some extra work >> for you to collect V8 (alternatively, I can send V8 without patch 1). > > We're only at -rc3, so I'll remove both series from mm.git. Please > fully resend both series against mm-unstable? Got it. Best Regards, Yan, Zi
