Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] Eliminate Dying Memory Cgroup

[Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>]

On 29 Dec 2025, at 23:48, Shakeel Butt wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 12:25:31PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for running the AI review for this patchset, but please do not
>>>> directly send the raw data from the AI review to the community, as this
>>>> is no different from automated review by a robot.
>>>
>>> Hi Qi,
>>>
>>> I don't know why you're so negative towards it. It's been great at
>>
>> No, I don't object to having a dedicated robot to do this.
>>
>>> finding pretty tricky bugs often missed by human reviewers. In no way
>>> it's a replacement for human reviews, but if a robot can find real
>>> issues and make the kernel more reliable and safe, I'm in.
>>
>> I just think you should do a preliminary review of the AI ​​review results
>> instead of sending them out directly. Otherwise, if everyone does this,
>> the community will be full of bots.
>>
>> No?
>>
>
> We don't want too many bots but we definitely want at least one AI
> review bot. Now we have precedence of BPF and networking subsystem and
> the results I have seen are really good. I think the MM community needs
> to come together and decide on the formalities of AI review process and
> I see Roman is doing some early experimentation and result looks great.

Do you mind explaining why the result looks great? Does it mean you agree
the regressions pointed out by the AI review?

If we want to do AI reviews, the process should be improved instead of
just pasting the output from AI. In the initial stage, I think some human
intervention is needed, at least adding some comment on AI reviews would
be helpful. Otherwise, it looks like you agree completely with AI reviews.
In addition, “50% of the reported issues are real”, is the AI tossing
a coin when reporting issues?

When I am looking into the prompt part, I have the following questions:

1. What is “Prompts SHA: 192922ae6bf4 ("bpf.md: adjust the documentation
about bpf kfunc parameter validation”)”? I got the actual prompts
from irc: https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/tree/main, but it
should be provided along with the review for others to reproduce.

2. Looking at the mm prompt: https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/blob/main/mm.md, are you sure the patterns are all right?
	a. Page/Folio States, Large folios require per-page state tracking for
		Reference counts. I thought we want to get rid of per page refcount.
    b. Migration Invariants, NUMA balancing expects valid PTE combinations.
		PROTNONE PTEs are hardware invalid to trigger fault.
	c. TLB flushes required after PTE modifications. How about spurious fault
		handling?

3. For a cgroup patchset, I was expecting some cgroup specific prompt rules,
	but could not find any. What am I missing?



Best Regards,
Yan, Zi