Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] mm: compaction: mTHP-friendly memory compaction

[Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)]

On 10/21/26 08:00, Bo Zhang wrote:
> On 10/20/26 16:52, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
>> Isn't using  struct compact_control clean enough? There's already many
>> fields like
>>     bool direct_compaction;         /* False from kcompactd or /proc/... */
>>     bool proactive_compaction;      /* kcompactd proactive compaction */
>>
>> Who says is_via_compact_memory() cannot be refactored into something using
>> these kinds of fields and not 'order' being -1, which could be then used as
>> the target order.
> 
> Thanks, that's a much cleaner direction than reading huge_anon_orders_always
> and would also address the race I raised in the second open question.
> 
> I tried to work out what it takes, and ran into one thing I'd like your
> opinion on before committing to an approach.

I'm not going to answer your LLM's questions for you.