From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta0.migadu.com (out-123.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EC9D43DEBE for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2026 09:42:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.123 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791625362; cv=none; b=syQok7s4wUlX+ThDvC17uh6bq9EqOS3BpOzy6AmOvG587ORx/2nOwnxhxBgIE99q4ZLTx72JQavOR1h3Qu/O2Ca5ODpa1pL0Gx+xbYLeIG+OZYNVkQybpDW65zWjN1x1etPQTlYu4w74hFtqQ6nxWfOXbyVVhI6cLC1mFacpMK8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791625362; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AYKq4I4pt+XRaSTHkcogaEaoukmbVRkhJcniZ//zAgg=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=UVMs5/8gbZCTbQW+qJjWcJpUtfqbPWfr+zj4DNB2yk/8rSSdJwA/X0ASCJkWtmFuG9Sbm8USa+ew/x+UjIBegTCJy5AjH/slcLEhW5ccSYb+vzcN4UtR5C4wO0crvjJUrJ+zFxduJOq8MsvS0u+RcTZnPdu0O5xfRKv5rnwUKvI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=GkHp9HYw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.123 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="GkHp9HYw" X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=AYKq4I4pt+XRaSTHkcogaEaoukmbVRkhJcniZ//zAgg=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1791625355; v=1; x=1792230155; b=GkHp9HYwYhlAfeZazSdWeQJrN0BWOreotNM+3ynVXJ6yGnjdQ2Yu157g2bWLcwgamVXkbA93 qVTxIRGoZu3xUgv3nCKemIeKJWgUI7gLXasWnweZklqS1PpbQmM0g6iIdshtoRXyUsOG3ecPmHy UyKbqa5ut/uLpAJg0pbhzZew= X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id 57f0757703d8e229; Sat, 10 Oct 2026 09:42:34 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: 57f0757703d8e229 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3901.100.1.1.12\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] mm: Fix page-table teardown during memory hot-remove From: Muchun Song In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2026 17:42:18 +0800 Cc: Muchun Song , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, david@kernel.org, osalvador@suse.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, pjw@kernel.org, palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, alex@ghiti.fr, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, agordeev@linux.ibm.com, kevin.brodsky@arm.com, bjorn@rivosinc.com, apopple@nvidia.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20261008073021.2512665-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com> To: Dave Hansen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3901.100.1.1.12) > On Oct 10, 2026, at 04:48, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 10/8/26 00:30, Muchun Song wrote: >> This series is limited to bug fixes for the existing teardown paths. > > Why is this a series? Why not send the architectures independently? Is > there some dependency where they all need to be applied at once? What do > you want done with this series? Are you expecting it to be merged via > the mm path or the individual arch maintainers? You're right that there is no strict dependency across all three architectures in v1. I grouped them because they address the same page-table constructor/destructor imbalance exposed during memory hot-remove, but that alone does not require them to be applied as one series. For v2, I will move the common destructor handling into pagetable_free() as suggested by David. The RISC-V and arm64 fixes will then depend on that common MM change, so I plan to keep them in one series and have it go through the MM tree, with review or acks from the relevant architecture maintainers. Thanks, Muchun