Errr... how does this relate to your other, non-RFC patch series [0] "mm: honour
compact_unevictable_allowed in mlock and CMA paths"?

Why did you send this separately and why do you not mention the other series
here or there?

And why is one RFC and the other not?

You really need to add more context like this, I spent quite a bit of time
reviewing [0] and don't want to find out that actually you are abandoning that
for this or something?...

On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 10:38:09AM +0800, Wandun Chen wrote:

From: Wandun Chen <redacted>

vm.compact_unevictable_allowed=0 is meant to keep compaction from
touching unevictable folios. In practice there are still two paths
where it does not take effect. This series fixes them and adds a
tracepoint to make such issues easier to diagnose in the future.

Wandun Chen (3):
  mm/compaction: skip isolate mlocked folios when
    compact_unevictable_allowed=0
  mm/compaction: add per-folio isolation tracepoint
  mm/compaction: respect compact_unevictable_allowed in alloc_contig
    path

 include/linux/compaction.h        |  6 ++++++
 include/trace/events/compaction.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 mm/compaction.c                   | 14 +++++++++++---
 mm/internal.h                     |  1 +
 mm/page_alloc.c                   |  2 ++
 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--
2.43.0

Thanks, Lorenzo

[0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260707125925.3725177-1-chenwandun1@gmail.com/ (local)