From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32E23CCD183 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 02:56:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8BAC58E000D; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 22:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 844478E0002; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 22:56:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7335F8E000D; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 22:56:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5818E0002 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 22:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9D21A012F for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 02:56:36 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83980691592.05.F3AF7CD Received: from lgeamrelo03.lge.com (lgeamrelo03.lge.com [156.147.51.102]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85633120005 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 02:56:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=lge.com; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of youngjun.park@lge.com designates 156.147.51.102 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=youngjun.park@lge.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1760064995; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+V6njfA+CchsIKhHVoblfZJHstWgq9ADH6BL8PwwxlI=; b=l5WE9bDUfj5rJ8ulHFf+S4nyWVzWlN5bhsqQmoeNu2GqEm1CdE6nm5T920pOLQDGclArti YWVH0wFIRd1YQTFp6nqzUAfkz+UFZ0XwacwpHexsowhDW4Qni6aEaf2LNkE+hGF1yQhRXM k1rBzsNi0LPgJp2MlqFs/gUHDFmGXLI= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1760064995; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=B/JTCHsL0k67ESVGvY/uWsEZzcDLIoeZBFyA+xi6IRlRfScPqym0/KS5TFoW4ry7U6U624 KUW2QJ8hSCFOI1MkOM+wFnJFmuLgYGCjuNxcVvVEclxzY0/svIHEd7s5tJGUpLxfU1L31q yh/wIWkBFB1lnveKATl+BwBSc072Kkg= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=lge.com; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of youngjun.park@lge.com designates 156.147.51.102 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=youngjun.park@lge.com Received: from unknown (HELO yjaykim-PowerEdge-T330) (10.177.112.156) by 156.147.51.102 with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2025 11:56:29 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.112.156 X-Original-MAILFROM: youngjun.park@lge.com Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 11:56:29 +0900 From: YoungJun Park To: Chris Li Cc: Baoquan He , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, kasong@tencent.com, baohua@kernel.org, nphamcs@gmail.com, shikemeng@huaweicloud.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/swap: remove unneeded swap_active_head Message-ID: References: <20251001043436.41338-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20251001043436.41338-4-bhe@redhat.com> <20251008202623.1ef2ac29af9b9c3d53aca4b2@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Stat-Signature: 68q1mt18s3ayx5iu6p4rmc4j89aguax5 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 85633120005 X-HE-Tag: 1760064993-88992 X-HE-Meta: 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 ravcyri/ HSs+3a9PcIoL0fCrLTcDjbPn8iKZ+/6Yw0HAAufoMTu04p04dL5WxV4sTbKkdvr3BTcljypijUGgLqI1h4VeB1DSeZh+OiforfAQvsgxTphbai4raVkZnSAL+Er2g4sE8jeUp+iIeo30nqejD3usECBvDrDHDk+Wut5NBphppqqgQBO5cxX1mOCZL29Rcy5EHOewOl7PkPbjVNxvD4J2FNlh1AoGquook4b5O1Mtkcl8p+bZyn3ONsCQwFU1BFUap+vK5JjLa9VH+KMDsSst8psgr40SYt4bI4gIG/tsBwv8FUCLmSlMonHB5EQ== X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 10:09:56AM -0700, Chris Li wrote: > Hi Baoquan, > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 12:47 AM Baoquan He wrote: > > > > By the way, Chris worried the plist swap_active_head could be reused by > > the ongoing swap-tier work and suggested to hold off this patchset till > > swap-tier work is clear. Now seems it won't impact swap-tier, I will > > send a v2 against mm-new. > > Sorry I haven't made it clear earlier. I withdraw the NACK because > that is my misunderstanding of the code behavior. It does not mean I > clear the swap tiers will not use swap_active_head yet, I actually > haven't done that investigation. > > I still suggest deferring this series which deletes the > "swap_active_head". Wait until YoungPark's swap tiers to be sent out Thanks Chris. "swap_active_head" is used on my current working patch. > on the list. Let's wait for about 1 month or so, we should have a much Yes, I am on the construct writing swap tier RFC. it takes a few weeks to share on LKML. > better understanding if the swap tiers series needs to use the > "swap_active_head". We are not in a hurry to remove it, right? The > earliest this can go into the official tree is 6.19 anyway. We still > have some time. > YoungPark, do you know if you want to use "swap_active_head" in your On current version of my patch, I use "swap_active_head" on swap_tier assignment logic when traversing current swapfile. It is efficient to use "swap_active_head" on traversing the swapfile in priority order. I think about more on this part. > pending patch series? Even better send your pending RFC patches to the > list and Baoquan can collaborate on it. As mentioned above, share it a few weeks later. Thanks, Youngjun Park