Re: [PATCH v9 0/2] mm/vmscan: fix demotion targets checks in reclaim/demotion

[Bing Jiao <bingjiao@google.com>]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 03:35:26PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Hi Bing,
>
> Please don't reply (i.e. use In-Reply-To) to older revision of your
> series. Send each revision independently.
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 08:53:01PM +0000, Bing Jiao wrote:
> > This patch series addresses two issues in demote_folio_list(),
> > can_demote(), and next_demotion_node() in reclaim/demotion.
> >
> > 1. demote_folio_list() and can_demote() do not correctly check demotion
> >    target against cpuset.mems_effective, which will cause (a) pages are
> >    demoted
>
> pages to be demoted
>
> > to not-allowed nodes and (b) pages are failed to demote
>
> page fail to demote
>
> > even
> >    if the system still have allowed demotion nodes.
> >
> >    Patch 1 fixes this bug by update
>
> updating
>
> > cpuset_node_allowed() and
> >    mem_cgroup_node_allowed() to return effective_mems, allowing directly
> >    logic-and operation against demotion targets.
> >
> > 2. next_demotion_node() returns a preferred demotion target, but it does
>
> does or does not?
>
> >    check the node against allowed nodes.
> >
> >    Patch 2 ensures that next_demotion_node() filters against the allowed
> >    node mask and selects the closest demotion target to the source node.


Hi Shakeel,

Thank you for taking the time to review this patch series and for the
helpful corrections. I also appreciate the reminder about the patch
replying rule and will make sure to send future revisions independently.

Have a great weekend!

Best,
Bing