Hi Andrew, On 8/8/2023 12:43 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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 Thanks. Will resend the patches. Regards Yin, Fengwei > > a) different Subject:s for all patches and > > b) changelogs which fully describe the user-visible effects of the change. > > Thanks.
