Messages in this thread |  | | From | Nico Pache <> | | Date | Sun, 3 May 2026 06:23:31 -0600 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7.2 v16 00/13] khugepaged: mTHP support |
| |
On 4/24/26 7:58 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 12:57:37 -0600 Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The following series provides khugepaged with the capability to collapse >> anonymous memory regions to mTHPs. > > Lots of stuff here: > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260419185750.260784-1-npache@redhat.com > > It's going to take some time. Hopefully worthwhile. > > As always, it's useful to hear about the usefulness of the AI review.
Ok I went through those! Can you please pull the changes from the staging branch so I can resend it soon (probably after LSFMM, so no rush)?
Heres my report:
patch 2 - rather useless as memcg does not have per order/mthp stats
patch 4 - good point, although kinda minor, same as what Usama brought up
patch 5 - either the concern is nonsense or im too dumb to understand it. Maybe someone else can confirm
Patch 5.2 - Not a real concern (I don't think), given we've already fully locked down the PTE table, nothing should be able to reach it. It notes a specific config might be an issue, I will test with that on.
Patch 9 - was a real concern, and my fault for semi-lazily stripping out a variable without fully considering the effects. David noted this too. Good news is that it got the reasoning for why it is bad correct. Oddly, I did not see a bug during testing which I would expected to show up in the madvise tests. I just reverted my changes, I will try to clean this up in a future cleanup series... Although there may be no good way around this madvise behavior.
Patch 10.1 - Good point, I had considered this during my design, but then convinced myself I was incorrect. This actually saves us a lot of heap space :) Gotta retest a lot though. First few tests show no issue
Patch 10.2 - Not a concern and if we made it here, it's already been checked. Furthermore, the result would be the same. Although not a bad question from the AI
Patch 10.3 - I dont think this is a valid concern at all
Patch 10.4 - I don't think this is a valid concern at all
Patch 10.5 - The first half is valid (although it's what the next patch does), so it's not really that valid, it's just missing the series context. second half hmm
Patch 10.6 - Not a real concern
Patch 11 - Not a bad consideration
Patch 12 - real bug from my last refactor
Patch 12.2 - Decent consideration, but not a real concern, just a design choice.
So yes overall very smart to check sashiko :) But as someone currently actively working on sashiko I was already a fan.
Cheers, -- Nico
>
|  |