On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 07:31:26AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > Errr... how does this relate to your other, non-RFC patch series [0] "mm: > honour > compact_unevictable_allowed in mlock and CMA paths"? > > Why did you send this separately and why do you not mention the other series > here or there? > > And why is one RFC and the other not? > > You really need to add more context like this, I spent quite a bit of time > reviewing [0] and don't want to find out that actually you are abandoning that > for this or something?...
Oh hang on... this is old, and [0] is new, my bad. It just got pinged up my mail client because of recent replies :>) Thanks, Lorenzo > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 10:38:09AM +0800, Wandun Chen wrote: > > From: Wandun Chen <[email protected]> > > > > vm.compact_unevictable_allowed=0 is meant to keep compaction from > > touching unevictable folios. In practice there are still two paths > > where it does not take effect. This series fixes them and adds a > > tracepoint to make such issues easier to diagnose in the future. > > > > Wandun Chen (3): > > mm/compaction: skip isolate mlocked folios when > > compact_unevictable_allowed=0 > > mm/compaction: add per-folio isolation tracepoint > > mm/compaction: respect compact_unevictable_allowed in alloc_contig > > path > > > > include/linux/compaction.h | 6 ++++++ > > include/trace/events/compaction.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > mm/compaction.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > > mm/internal.h | 1 + > > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++ > > 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.43.0 > > > > Thanks, Lorenzo > > [0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
