Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] mm/vmscan: honour node reclaim limits per type

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

+cc Roman for suggestion.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 10:31:06AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> You are explaining what but missing the most important part _Why_ do we
> need to have this addressed? Is this just addressing Sashiko review
> refernced below? Is there any real usecase where the current behavior
> matters?

This is exactly the issue with these 'unrelated to your patch but' suggestions
from sashiko.

You end up in loops:

        AI generated patch --------------->  AI generated review
                  ^                                  |
                  |                                  |
                  |                                  v
                 AI generated 'unrelated to your patch but'

And _at every stage_ reviewers have to do _additional work_ (with ~50% signal/noise).

This isn't sustainable.

We already had _too much work_ prior to the slopgeddon. Now we have a multiple
of that.

Roman - I really think we a way of switching off the 'unrelated to your patch
but' stuff per-subsystem would be useful.

Maybe we could figure out a way of funnelling this stuff somewhere separately
longer term.

(I have I think 2 slopped fixes to rewrite after the previous what like 7 or 8
this cycle? So forgive the grumpiness :)

--
Cheers, Lorenzo