On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 15:14:53 +0800 "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 8/2/2023 8:39 PM, Yin, Fengwei wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > > > On 7/29/2023 1:24 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 00:13:54 +0800 Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> In madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() and madvise_free_pte_range(), > >>> folio_mapcount() is used to check whether the folio is shared. But it's > >>> not correct as folio_mapcount() returns total mapcount of large folio. > >>> > >>> Use folio_estimated_sharers() here as the estimated number is enough. > >> > >> What are the user-visible runtime effects of these changes? > >> > >> (and please try to avoid using the same Subject: for different patches) > >> > > > > Can you hold on these patches to mm-unstable? I think we need to wait for > > David's work on folio_maybe_mapped_shared() and redo the fix base on that. > > Thanks and sorry for the noise. > Sorry for bothering you again for this patchset. > > Let me explain the situation here: > - The reason to hold on the patches to mm-unstable is that I don't want to > promote the fix in this patch (using folio_estimated_sharers()). The > correct way is waiting for folio_maybe_mapped_shared() from David. > > Merging these patches motivate using folio_estimated_sharers() in other > places. So once folio_maybe_mapped_shared() is ready, we need to replace > folio_estimated_sharers() with folio_maybe_mapped_shared(). > > - For this specific patches, if they are suitable for stable, we may want to > merge it (special for stable branch. I assume folio_maybe_mapped_shared() > may not be back ported to stable branch). > > So how do we deal with this situation? Thanks in advance. > I think I'll stage them for 6.5, with a cc:stable. I'll drop the current three patches. Please resend with a) different Subject:s for all patches and b) changelogs which fully describe the user-visible effects of the change. Thanks.
