On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 01:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024, Baolin Wang wrote: > > On 2024/6/19 04:05, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:54:12 +0800 Baolin Wang > > > <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> Shmem will support large folio allocation [1] [2] to get a better > > >> performance, > > >> however, the memory reclaim still splits the precious large folios when > > >> trying > > >> to swap-out shmem, which may lead to the memory fragmentation issue and can > > >> not > > >> take advantage of the large folio for shmeme. > > >> > > >> Moreover, the swap code already supports for swapping out large folio > > >> without > > >> split, and large folio swap-in[3] series is queued into mm-unstable branch. > > >> Hence this patch set also supports the large folio swap-out and swap-in for > > >> shmem. > > > > > > I'll add this to mm-unstable for some exposure, but I wonder how much > > > testing it will have recieved by the time the next merge window opens? > > > > Thanks Andrew. I am fine with this series going to 6.12 if you are concerned > > about insufficient testing (and let's also wait for Hugh's comments). Since we > > (Daniel and I) have some follow-up patches that will rely on this swap series, > > hope this series can be tested as extensively as possible to ensure its > > stability in the mm branch. > > Thanks for giving it the exposure, Andrew, but please drop it from > mm-unstable until the next cycle. Thanks, dropped. > p.s. I think Andrew Bresticker's do_set_pmd() fix has soaked > long enough, and deserves promotion to hotfix and Linus soon. Oh, OK, done. And it's cc:stable. I didn't get any sens of urgency for this one - what is your thinking here?
