From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout06.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout06.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.221]) (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 2CEB437FF75 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 03:12:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.221 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788232372; cv=none; b=DlXR48zg5cKdIikhn4q3XToG4mJAS4sttnpxbJT6Wv3kdwSlVJZ35IV0f8mShjKqMvG/IyznUohXNgtj8PO/UD6R5pnowZO4DPxxEJ0j9TTaedHwHxtGeb56L0oUZE8LOLu7ezgs1SUAiMmQedabRS55iNN6o2vqIgHk5M0uU9w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788232372; c=relaxed/simple; bh=epqjbe2DpecLvTnw4zm95PN+TCsZQmZKjv18DROlvtk=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:CC:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=hcjlzLUWHUJoqc9XNI7bLfiuNZVJpiyZK2QQ5KYyj3S7BoijOWMCbH5eGyI8aqHkHaAn7CiiKbqlfqzqskwIZFu9DtEKZM1jbMqvT8PEgPEsT2q/WRq1KUBtE9pm09fsHmu7x9TtWe93rMFA9VBFQUfmo96fnkhDW650QDk/bSw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=2FuUIMv8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.221 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="2FuUIMv8" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=868doxc2TiEPS+iWdp2u7jWKN/mr8YzZMB03OTDKqEc=; b=2FuUIMv8A45fN1Fg256xHW+FbTGN6KYBmeNOwXkCzXVvCN7SoCz8scEwm7lHDLIsvFM2jyQjX W+/0iVF57vRtyyFEUup9ar5K6RDt7U7qtaJd8vzSOpzNCGp5uQ+M0vLntMN5wsSRE8a3tr48RZ1 n4cfmHC1EburblLfu6xnlwU= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.104]) by canpmsgout06.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4hYrHN3fGZzRhS4; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 11:01:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from whupemk200018.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.152.184.119]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EFD34057F; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 11:12:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.177.15] (10.174.177.15) by whupemk200018.china.huawei.com (7.152.184.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.45; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 11:12:37 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2026 11:12:37 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: vmscan: fix scan overshoot and ineligible folio scanning To: References: <20260811070849.1332165-1-mawupeng1@huawei.com> <20260811184241.e423b81c8a50d5f212af1c3b@linux-foundation.org> <20260829201809.99fe79c4725413bf80510fed@linux-foundation.org> From: mawupeng In-Reply-To: <20260829201809.99fe79c4725413bf80510fed@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.70) To whupemk200018.china.huawei.com (7.152.184.119) On 周日 2026-8-30 11:18, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 08:59:54 +0800 mawupeng wrote: > >> Hi, maintainers >> Kindly ping. > > It's been quite a while. It would be helpful to refresh/retest/resend, > please. Thanks, Andrew. I’ll retest it with the background (situation, end-user impact, reproduction, A/B) folded into the cover letter and re-tested on the current -rc. > > While doing this, please update the changelogging to help reviewers > understand the end-user impact of the issue. > > Please also give some though to whether we should backport these fixes > into earlier kernels, with a cc:stable. Given the unusual > circumstances which are required to hit this, I'm thinking "no", but > feel free to disagree! On cc:stable — I agree it doesn’t seem warranted. The conditions needed to trigger this are unusual enough that I don’t think a backport is justified, so I’d lean toward not adding Cc:stable. Happy to revisit if I’m missing something. >