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

[Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 11:46:02AM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
> 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?

The result looks great because the points raised are really thought
provoking and things I have not thought about when I reviewed the
series. The lru lock without irq or the possible infinite retry loop in
get_mem_cgroup_from_folio() are two such examples. Are these real
regressions? I am not sure.

> 
> 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.

Yes I agree and therefore I mentioned we should discuss how should we
(MM community) should adopt the AI reviews.

> 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.

I agree and I didn't know that Chris's review prompts are used here.

Ccing Chris for your following questions.

> 
> 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?
> 
>