On 4/24/26 17:12, Zi Yan wrote: > On 24 Apr 2026, at 11:07, Zi Yan wrote: > >> On 24 Apr 2026, at 8:54, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >> >>> >>> In general looks good. Just one question: >>> >>> folio_check_splittable() also rejects SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM / new_order for >>> swapcache pages. >> >> Since swapcache only supports PMD order or 0 order yet. >> >>> >>> It's confusing, but truncate would never stumble over such folios, correct? >> >> Right. > > BTW, sashiko had a similar question when it reviewed v2[1]. It also complained > about when the split fails, the entire folio remains in memory. But that is > the > consequence of failed split, unless we want to keep retrying the split.
Retry isn't guaranteed to make progress, so it's the current expected behavior. -- Cheers, David
