On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 04:37:41AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Same change as the previous patch but for alloc_swap_folio:
Please don't say 'same change as the previous patch' :) explain what you're doing here. It's a pain to have to go check otherwise. > pass vmf->address directly instead of ALIGN_DOWN(vmf->address, ...). > > Note: NUMA interleave is not affected by the raw address; > the ilx calculation shifts addr >> PAGE_SHIFT >> order, > dropping sub-page bits regardless of alignment. You're expressing the same thing as the last patch differently, but then eliding other explanations from that? All the same questions as I asked for the last apply to this also. And also - if you've now made this a _requirement_ that is broken otherwise, then aren't these bisection hazards and should be squashed into the change?... No patch should break anything at any point. > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Gregory Price <[email protected]> > Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4-6 > Assisted-by: cursor-agent:GPT-5.4-xhigh > --- > mm/memory.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c > index 21f640674c4f..6c14b90f558e 100644 > --- a/mm/memory.c > +++ b/mm/memory.c > @@ -4750,8 +4750,7 @@ static struct folio *alloc_swap_folio(struct vm_fault > *vmf) > /* Try allocating the highest of the remaining orders. */ > gfp = vma_thp_gfp_mask(vma); > while (orders) { > - addr = ALIGN_DOWN(vmf->address, PAGE_SIZE << order); > - folio = vma_alloc_folio(gfp, order, vma, addr); > + folio = vma_alloc_folio(gfp, order, vma, vmf->address); > if (folio) { > if (!mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio(folio, vma->vm_mm, > gfp, entry)) > -- > MST > Thanks, Lorenzo
