From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB2FE44781B; Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787920891; cv=none; b=FmEuHU7UAx5vl6AIKBlhbEjqrJqs7qTbSMZVlPDjxziBPOdtTsMXHEYqJQpCuT6PCnBTWin1+966AeLHBXXh++5sos0DaGyL2UN3qZRXdHdjrLvAu0DrN14XT+Mhmf76UQNLDJSoozVjAibYBIJlqGnFXr8KncfHrXBXBMCC1iQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787920891; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JsdYFNlmu3mZtC0DhffCWqMCuB12dqERlIoFUoVuPCg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=TVU7tQCYUma7vbdnr2uOeknInzlGo2ppNs20y/ZOTkupwxbU3e6vUWLa7zzt2Ssz+p+X/Np5b230DgMMtY5KV2qbXcPKijLz228QZxAQQT0Q1eEyXyYl+k/3tl8j2kutk+o60d9rD6bQzqAvLTtGRYk2d8nefgoVmS9dGff7X4w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=HzpcEx3Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.92.199 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="HzpcEx3Z" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=JsdYFNlmu3mZtC0DhffCWqMCuB12dqERlIoFUoVuPCg=; b=HzpcEx3Zje4gJfUb+ceU/x1FvE Zl3Mh4+eWu1HIJa93GBWDAjBGZo41IkX2S3AHDLV+ABH8Iudi6x4SUr8JFb7Xp+1f8Ta90NUfIQpx xATI1wocphSZX/9LCrdJL9vLsfbJVD4ikAX0dnigoFCt2X36M6tqukfVSkYUTSw7/RpzWURd7G2B7 ky42+wb5W0wgO3bhKN8rW0nZqed7CeNX1TYQw6coaPu0LDtCbvXRJ5cNfOXMnNwCO/uM4nFSEQZzM jAGWSRVFbt1xFQbORlb47ptVlPQUcPizFCQgguncsUiMarbI0Ol/17cCxaQrLbrIovxFgxl4kOQLa mZsBqG5g==; Received: from 77-249-17-252.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([77.249.17.252] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.99.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wzvtH-00000008FbN-2c6I; Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:41:04 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 07F9C30030F; Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:41:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:41:00 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: David Stevens Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Dave Chinner , Qi Zheng , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Valentin Schneider , K Prateek Nayak , Uladzislau Rezki , David Hildenbrand , Lorenzo Stoakes , "Liam R . Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Kees Cook , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Clark Williams , suleiman@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC 06/10] Reclaim memory from blocked kernel stacks Message-ID: <20260828124100.GO687043@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20260827232948.2520558-1-stevensd@google.com> <20260827232948.2520558-7-stevensd@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260827232948.2520558-7-stevensd@google.com> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 04:29:44PM -0700, David Stevens wrote: > This feature does work on PREEMPT_RT, but is likely undesirable due to > the extra uncertainty. The fact that alloc_pages_nolock_noprof() cannot > be called from under the scheduler lock also makes repopulating stacks > more expensive. Aaah, so you knew it was hot garbage :-( Please don't ever post anything like this again.