On 8/3/26 17:03, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >> I sent a fix for the GUP code that always makes us drain right now: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260731-check_and_migrate_movable_folios-v1-1-e0002d7b7...@kernel.org >> >> Would the following (agains mm-unstable + fix) work for you? >> >> >> I assume that you'd have to call it as >> >> lru_cache_drain_for_folio(folio, 0, NULL); >> >> But maybe there are indeed extra references that are not reflected in >> folio_expected_ref_count() that you would have to consider? I doubt it, but >> please check if >> there would be a problem. >> >> There is a small problem for merging: >> >> (1) The patch depends on the fix. >> >> (2) mm/swap.c was moved to mm/folio.c in the mm tree. >> >> We could write what I have below against Linus' tree and have the conflict be >> resolved when merging. Topic branches are unfortunately not yet a thing in MM >> land. > > Are you expecting the aforementioned fix to land in 7.2, 7.3, or 7.4? If it's
Andrew wants to give it some more time in -next, so I'm expecting it to land for 7.3. > 7.2 or 7.3, then I would strongly prefer to base v10 on linux-next (where the > fix > will presumably land soonish), and target 7.4 for in-place conversion. Then > v10> can be applied against an early 7.3-rcN and we don't need to juggle > branches > (assuming Andrew is ok taking the proposed patch through the KVM tree). Agreed. We'd also have to get the actual preparation patch into 7.3. I can send it out and coordinate with Andrew. -- Cheers, David
