Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mm: improve large folio readahead and alignment for exec memory

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
>
>
> On 10/04/2026 12:57, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 12:55:42PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 02/04/2026 19:08, Usama Arif wrote:
> >>>> v2 -> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260320140315.979307-1-usama.arif@xxxxxxxxx/
> >>>> - Take into account READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS for elf alignment by aligning
> >>>>   to HPAGE_PMD_SIZE limited to 2M (Rui)
> >>>> - Reviewed-by tags for patch 1 from Kiryl and Jan
> >>>> - Remove preferred_exec_order() (Jan)
> >>>> - Change ra->order to HPAGE_PMD_ORDER if vma_pages(vma) >= HPAGE_PMD_NR
> >>>>   otherwise use exec_folio_order() with gfp &= ~__GFP_RECLAIM for
> >>>>   do_sync_mmap_readahead().
> >>>> - Change exec_folio_order() to return 2M (cont-pte size) for 64K base
> >>>>   page size for arm64.
> >>>> - remove bprm->file NULL check (Matthew)
> >>>> - Change filp to file (Matthew)
> >>>> - Improve checking of p_vaddr and p_vaddr (Rui and Matthew)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Hello!
> >>>
> >>> Just wanted to check if there was any feedback/review on the latest
> >>> revision?
> >>
> >> It's -rc7, this is definitely something for next cycle :)
> >>
> >> On my part, my upstream bandwidth has drastically reduced, and review is
> >> probably going to have to be a hobbyist thing at least for now.
> >>
> >> Also, not to be mean but:
> >>
> >> $ git log -E -i --grep "(Reviewed|Acked)-by: Usama Arif" --oneline | wc -l
> >> 21
> >>
> >> So... :)
> >>
> >> Review in mm is very lop-sided, let's try to balance it out a bit!
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks, Lorenzo
> >
> > (Note that we're in a 'quiet period' from here until -rc1 of next cycle and
> > won't be taking anything new until then. We plan to do this from around rc5 or
> > rc6 of each cycle in future).
>
> Thanks! Just wanted to check, as I am always confused about this. Is it ok
> to send patches for review for next release at this time? So that they
> are in a good state when rc1 comes. I wanted to send PMD swap entries
> for review after I am finished testing, but I want them for review for
> next release.

I think different people have different views on that :)

I mean it's debateable whether having a glut of new material on day one of -rc1
is preferable to having a bunch come in that might or might not get lost along
the way :)

I personally feel it'd be better to send during the cycle window rather than
before but I suspect others disagree with that!

So from your point of view, feel free to do what you like, but maybe David +
others would want to chime in with their opinions?

Thanks, Lorenzo