From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 75AAC329E46; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782389521; cv=none; b=EQu8LeGmbkYCxQx9NkKechh1zb1tcnDqw7coRbzgGvVg1DJnQmMKoyJlcduypTgBnbDjDJqE/4k+wyKnl0JfQ8DGD+aqwmspJbHinCPuJdn0jG0V3u59GPG66pNv+Ar4AUa5NgZwtBMQ21WDOC5MKM/tGMoJzEt0/PYZSMIt2mY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782389521; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KlmQV4tEVDrxf8sVOorcuSyS1DcYFMKjw0saPFmmK+w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fwVPlKrvxVrCyd2EQB591VbfruBhy8Zoz8YSD9UDM/oucOutFKiOg8+S3ax0XP33C+QG+EdeGm10kcHUAjpUzHsL+iMTSxff7G0rVp6b+Ax9/CHbcm3KewaJjuXjHokLGdIkgcWvTCB91iZQ5N2lJKhHCU5/cVDF4mxrVGvez+E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=CRXNOXrV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="CRXNOXrV" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=HliYnva+5KN1E+V4bq3PVoEHb8bbV3JhWLB6Y70JEp4=; b=CRXNOXrV9IbbHk009wQGE7S2Zc 63ozwRQpJek7txIp03qIs+/lptFXVmZRQV+QouHmJ/QXoL9wBwN7XjpcHbbtemwqtWlbn8B6K1bBx r1gUNMTrfaVAHMesutX96zlS2RsIJ5PLfE4Rvx3FAR0d655ALcZHKku8mc3zbNNmaTKpbwXakTdg1 nBHOwBaggaeQzwtuyTwr5czwLSjbtI111M6oEpJYxH+YjgmDsTS8cazxmXRwkoeIPGsUgX0qr+mjf BEk8QDwwtmIxEs6/ai3Lkzl7M1H1pvXFe0N7EdsxAFbF6mVh14At8eLm+8PQsvE4bk+Au5pTMUzqv 2+2DySuA==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wciw2-00000009AIS-2CXF; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:11:58 +0000 Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 05:11:58 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Salvatore Dipietro Cc: hch@infradead.org, ritesh.list@gmail.com, abuehaze@amazon.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alisaidi@amazon.com, blakgeof@amazon.com, brauner@kernel.org, david@kernel.org, dipietro.salvatore@gmail.com, djwong@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, ljs@kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, rppt@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, vbabka@kernel.org, vbabka@suse.com, willy@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iomap: avoid compaction for costly folio order allocation Message-ID: References: <20260625091039.24501-1-dipiets@amazon.it> 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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20260625091039.24501-1-dipiets@amazon.it> X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 09:10:37AM +0000, Salvatore Dipietro wrote: > Yes — all the patches in the result table are shared within this thread: > > v1 (original, iomap caller): The original PATCH 1/1 in this series > Ritesh's suggestion (mm/filemap.c): Shared in Ritesh's reply on May 3rd [1] > Matthew's suggestion (mm/filemap.c): Shared in Matthew's reply on April 4th [2] > kcompactd background (mm/page_alloc.c): Shared in my reply on May 6th [3] The page_alloc.c change definitively seems like the right thing to do from the high-level POV. It would also be nice to find a way to centralize the logic for which flags to set in a central place as we have quite a few other places that want to allocate large folios optimistically.