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

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 03:29:12PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 4/10/26 14:24, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 01:19:08PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
> >> >> 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?
>
> For me the more important part of the quiet period is that patches can't be
> merged, so there's less urgency to review them immediately. So I think it's
> fine to still send patches, but not having expectations about quick
> response, as people might be taking time off.
>
> On the other hand it would be better if new series could mature in this
> quiet period, so there would be less work after rc1. But the key to making
> that possible I think is to feel less urgency/being overwhelmed also in the
> non-quiet period (rc1-rc5/6). Then it's should be less necessary to take
> time off during the quiet period. So hopefully we'll get there through
> involving more reviewers, and by having more submaintainers agency.

Yeah I sympathise with that.

But until we for-sure have <you know what :))> signoff, I worry about the risk
of series 'just being taken' at -rc1 because it maybe seems easier to do that,
and then we have a series from 5 weeks ago you forgot about suddenly crop up.

So I guess the more nuanced take I have is:

Once we have a robust set up end-to-end _that can handle_ having series that are
deferred to next cycle without risk of things getting mixed up - then that makes
sense, yes.

But while there's still a bit of uncertainty around that, then I'd rather not.

But I think if people DO just resend their stuff in -rc1 then we're OK and it
addresses my concerns.

One thing we could do here is to tag series appropriately like:

[PATCH v7.2] 00/42

To make it clear where it's intended to head to.

P.S. Having the 'quiet period' REALLY REALLY helps. So thanks for that Andrew!

>
> Vlastimil

Thanks, Lorenzo