Re: [PATCH 0/15] mm: introduce ANON_VMA_LAZY for deferred anon_vma creation

[Barry Song]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 11:37 PM Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 10:46:35AM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2026/6/2 10:15, Barry Song wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:46 AM wangtao <tao.wangtao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > You said discussion was welcome, yet when someone offered even a
> > > > small comment, you refused to continue the discussion.
> > > >
> > > > If I had known you would be this inconsistent, I would not have
> > > > replied to you in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > This will be my last reply to you. I will not respond again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Tao,
> > >
> > > Please don't walk away from the linux-mm community. I read your
> > > patchset and found it quite valuable. It not only reduces memory
> > > overhead, but also eliminates rmap costs for exclusive folios.
> > >
> > > Since I'm not very confident discussing technical topics in English,
> > > I wrote a blog post in Chinese about your patchset:
> > >
> > > https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/k00tzhTl8HbL3k4G6ev4SA
> > >
> > > I have to admit that I found the implementation quite complex and
> > > in need of significant improvement. However, I think the underlying
> > > idea is very interesting and worth exploring further.
> > >
> > > I'm looking forward to seeing a v2 RFC with a cleaner and simpler
> > > implementation while preserving the core concept.
> > >
> > > Regardless of whether it ultimately gets merged, I hope the discussion
> > > can continue.
> >
> > Same here :)
> >
> > Tao, please don't let this thread get you down. No first RFC is
> > perfect, and the idea still looks worth discussing :)
> >
> > Thanks for working on this!
>
> Guys, this isn't helpful.
>
> We aren't extending anon_vma, and I am working on replacing it, that's the
> bottom line.

Not trying to challenge your bottom line. As explained to Harry, I
have no doubt about your expertise in rmap and many other mm
areas, and I deeply respect your work on rmap.

With more discussion, we might gain additional insight and
inspiration. What Tao has inspired me with is the idea that if we
assume most real-world processes are leaf processes, could we
simplify parts of the design?

This is why I suggested a v2, to improve the clarity of the cover
letter and make the code easier to understand, and to see whether
there is something worth considering further, even if it is not
suitable for merging.

>
> I have presented compelling evidence suggesting this is AI generated. In
> response I got more AI-generated nonsense. There's no trust, the code and
> analysis are all wrong, end of discussion.

I am not an AI expert, and I do not really use AI in kernel work,
so I am not really sure what counts as AI versus non-AI. Sorry.

>
> >
> > Cheers, Lance
> >
>
> Thanks, Lorenzo
>
> P.S. maintainership is utterly thankless, and I don't really expect much in
> return, but honestly reading this, given the case I've made here, was
> really quite disappointing.

Understood. I see your position, and I personally have great
respect and appreciation for your work on maintenance. Sorry if
my words came across as disappointing.

Best Regards
Barry