From: "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" <ljs@kernel.org>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] smaps: Report PMD page size for pure PMD mappings
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2026 10:33:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7ef9fed-d774-43b4-8ee1-20252096374e@lucifer.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f03ac28b-a2f8-4182-9f11-bafd6309cee0@kernel.org>
On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 08:20:38PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 3/4/26 18:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Why do you keep not CCing people from v1/v2 discussions? David said that
> > already on v2. It seems rather rude to me.
> >
> > On 3/3/26 9:15 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> When a smaps mapping is only PMD mappings report the
> >> PMD page size for MMUPageSize instead of the base page size.
> >>
> >> This is a revised version of an earlier patch that tried
> >> to report multiple page sizes, but there were many objections
> >> mainly centered around compatibility for mixed page size
> >> reporting. This patch side steps all of this by
> >> only handling the non mixed case in the simplest possible way.
> >> It also avoids a problem introduced with v2 that page sizes
> >> for mappings with no pages were incorrectly reported.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Will this be useful in practice or just confusing? There can be e.g.
> > misaligned mappings, or other reasons why there won't be 100% THP
> > coverage. This all or nothing value (IIUC) seems inferior to the
> > counters we have that say how much is pmd mapped, so I'm not really sure
> > it's worth changing this.
>
> My opinion on this remains unchanged.
Mine also.
>
> Not CCing me once more is questionable and makes me want to recommend
> Andi to work on different parts of the kernel.
Andi - I'm genuinely concerned that you're doing this on purpose here -
especially since you ignored that part of Vlastimil's reply and ignored
previous feedback about failing to cc- on more than one occasion.
Responding to negative technical feedback by being rude and dismissive then
(seemingly) intentionally trying to circumvent the review by failing to cc-
those who commented is completely unacceptable.
Sadly I have to join David in suggesting you find other parts of the kernel
to work on.
>
> I sent a doc update to clarify this. Won't make everybody happy, but we
> can't turn back time.
Thanks, will take a look!
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
Cheers, Lorenzo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-05 10:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-03 20:15 Andi Kleen
2026-03-04 17:29 ` Vlastimil Babka
2026-03-04 19:13 ` Andi Kleen
2026-03-04 19:20 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-05 10:33 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f7ef9fed-d774-43b4-8ee1-20252096374e@lucifer.local \
--to=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox