On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 11:39:27AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: > On 9/23/26 11:15, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > On 9/23/26 11:04, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 10:45:33AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > >>> On 9/23/26 01:00, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Do we have reason to believe that anyone is seeing any effects from > >>>> their arch's failure to rcu-free the page tables? > >>>> > >>>> This sounds like a rather long-standing wart, yes? > >>>> > >>>> The patchset is thinly reviewed and mm.git is bursting at the seams > >>>> again. I'll play wait-and-see on this series. > >>> Do we want to nudge arch maintainers to review? > >> > >> (Just to note that I replied separately, 'thinly reviewed' is incorrect, > >> it's > >> been in -next for weeks and the whole thing was reviewed by Kiryl.) > > > > Ack. > > > >> > >> The only places where that would be useful is m68k motorola, sparc32. > >> > >> But in any case it has been heavily tested including on every single arch > >> listed with stress testing performed (I think I cover that in the cover > >> letter). > >> > >> The changes are not controversial so I don't think that's a blocker, but > >> it'd be nice? > > > > I doubt we'll ever get sparc32 reviews :) > > > > I'd definitely appreciate some review on the arch bits from arch > > maintainers, > > but if they don't reply within the next weeks I wouldn't wait on that. > > Indeed, for minor arches like this the lack of review (it would be a whole > cycle by the merge window) shouldn't be a blocker for important tree-wide > progress.
Thanks appreciated! Greg from m68k has had a look so seems we have movement there anyway! :) -- Cheers, Lorenzo
