[PATCH AUTOSEL 6.15 6/8] PM: Restrict swap use to later in the suspend sequence

[Sasha Levin]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>Sasha Levin <sashal at kernel.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 02:32:02PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>>Wow!
>>>
>>>Sasha I think an impersonator has gotten into your account, and
>>>is just making nonsense up.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/aDXQaq-bq5BMMlce@lappy/
>
>It is nice it is giving explanations for it's backporting decisions.
>
>It would be nicer if those explanations were clearly marked as
>coming from a non-human agent, and did not read like a human being
>impatient for a patch to be backported.

Thats a fair point. I'll add "LLM Analysis:" before the explanation to
future patches.

>Further the machine given explanations were clearly wrong.  Do you have
>plans to do anything about that?  Using very incorrect justifications
>for backporting patches is scary.

Just like in the past 8 years where AUTOSEL ran without any explanation
whatsoever, the patches are manually reviewed and tested prior to being
included in the stable tree.

I don't make a point to go back and correct the justification, it's
there more to give some idea as to why this patch was marked for
review and may be completely bogus (in which case I'll drop the patch).

For that matter, I'd often look at the explanation only if I don't fully
understand why a certain patch was selected. Most often I just use it as
a "Yes/No" signal.

In this instance I honestly haven't read the LLM explanation. I agree
with you that the explanation is flawed, but the patch clearly fixes a
problem:

	"On AMD dGPUs this can lead to failed suspends under memory
	pressure situations as all VRAM must be evicted to system memory
	or swap."

So it was included in the AUTOSEL patchset.

Do you have an objection to this patch being included in -stable? So far
your concerns were about the LLM explanation rather than actual patch.

>I still highly recommend that you get your tool to not randomly
>cut out bits from links it references, making them unfollowable.

Good point. I'm not really sure what messes up the line wraps. I'll take
a look.

>>>At best all of this appears to be an effort to get someone else to
>>>do necessary thinking for you.  As my time for kernel work is very
>>>limited I expect I will auto-nack any such future attempts to outsource
>>>someone else's thinking on me.
>>
>> I've gone ahead and added you to the list of people who AUTOSEL will
>> skip, so no need to worry about wasting your time here.
>
>Thank you for that.
>
>I assume going forward that AUTOSEL will not consider any patches
>involving the core kernel and the user/kernel ABI going forward.  The
>areas I have been involved with over the years, and for which my review
>might be interesting.

The filter is based on authorship and SoBs. Individual maintainers of a
subsystem can elect to have their entire subsystem added to the ignore
list.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha