[PATCH v3 0/4] mm: improve large folio readahead and alignment for exec memory

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 01:05:40PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
>
>
> On 10/04/2026 12:55, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 02/04/2026 19:08, Usama Arif wrote:
> >>> v2 -> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260320140315.979307-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/
> >>> - Take into account READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS for elf alignment by aligning
> >>>   to HPAGE_PMD_SIZE limited to 2M (Rui)
> >>> - Reviewed-by tags for patch 1 from Kiryl and Jan
> >>> - Remove preferred_exec_order() (Jan)
> >>> - Change ra->order to HPAGE_PMD_ORDER if vma_pages(vma) >= HPAGE_PMD_NR
> >>>   otherwise use exec_folio_order() with gfp &= ~__GFP_RECLAIM for
> >>>   do_sync_mmap_readahead().
> >>> - Change exec_folio_order() to return 2M (cont-pte size) for 64K base
> >>>   page size for arm64.
> >>> - remove bprm->file NULL check (Matthew)
> >>> - Change filp to file (Matthew)
> >>> - Improve checking of p_vaddr and p_vaddr (Rui and Matthew)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> Just wanted to check if there was any feedback/review on the latest
> >> revision?
> >
> > It's -rc7, this is definitely something for next cycle :)
> >
>
> Yeah no worries! Just wanted to check what people thought about it!

We'll come back to it! With LSF coming too I think people are fairly distracted
as well.

>
> > On my part, my upstream bandwidth has drastically reduced, and review is
> > probably going to have to be a hobbyist thing at least for now.
> >
> > Also, not to be mean but:
> >
> > $ git log -E -i --grep "(Reviewed|Acked)-by: Usama Arif" --oneline | wc -l
> > 21
> >
> > So... :)
> >
> > Review in mm is very lop-sided, let's try to balance it out a bit!
> >
>
> Ah yeah actually I have been reviewing a lot over the last few months.

Good :)

> I dont ack patches that have already been acked-by/reviewed-by maintainers.

You should do that, it is meaningful. If you think a patch is OK, it's how you
say so!

Maintainers get things wrong too by the way, assume we are wrong and try to find
issues, this is how a healthy technical community operates (as long as everybody
is civil about it :)

> as I am not sure if it adds anything. I never really cared about Reviewed/Acked
> by/patch count but I can start adding tags if it helps in stats.

It's the only metric I can quickly bring up, so sorry that in this case I got it
wrong, but the overall point remains the same - we want to see a balance of
review and contributions, right now the two are really very lopsided!

>
> The reviews I have done over the last week alone:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260408122307.1360475-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260408123700.1596800-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260409142256.131676-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260410114809.3592720-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260410112433.3248586-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260331103451.1070175-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/T/#t
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260401152343.3294686-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/
>
>
>
>
>

Cheers, Lorenzo