LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alistair Popple <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Peter Xu <email@example.com>
Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Hugh Dickins <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Miaohe Lin <email@example.com>,
David Hildenbrand <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Andrea Arcangeli" <email@example.com>,
Yang Shi <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <email@example.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Jerome Glisse <email@example.com>,
Liam Howlett <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Mike Rapoport <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mm: Add ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP and zap_flags
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:21:30 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2497776.C4p5gPNQJS@nvdebian> (raw)
On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 12:52:48 PM AEST Peter Xu wrote:
> > > The flag introduced in this patch will be a preparation for more bits defined
> > > in the future, e.g., for a new bit in flag to show whether to persist the
> > > upcoming uffd-wp bit in pgtable entries.
> > That's kind of the problem. The patch itself looks correct to me however as
> > mentioned it is mostly reverting a previous cleanup and it's hard to tell why
> > that's justified without the subsequent patches. Perhaps it makes the usage of
> > zap_details a bit clearer, but a comment also would with less code.
> > I know you want to try and shrink the uffd-wp series but I think this patch
> > might be easier to review if it was included as part of that series.
> I posted it because I think it's suitable to have it even without uffd-wp.
> I tried to explain it above on two things this patch wanted to fix:
> Firstly the comment is wrong; we've moved back and forth on changing the
> zap_details flags but the comment is not changing along the way and it's not
> matching the code right now.
> Secondly I do think we should have a flag showing explicit willingness to skip
> swap entries. Yes, uffd-wp is the planned new one, but my point is anyone who
> will introduce a new user of zap_details pointer could overlook this fact. The
> new flag helps us to make sure someone will at least read the flags and know
> what'll happen with it.
> For the 2nd reasoning, I also explicitly CCed Kirill too, so Kirill can provide
> any comment if he disagrees. For now, I still think we should keep having such
> a flag otherwise it could be error-prone.
> Could you buy-in above reasoning?
Kind of, I do think it makes the usage of details a bit clearer or at least
harder to miss. It is just that if that was the sole aim of this patch I think
there might be simpler (less code) ways of doing so.
> Basically above is what I wanted to express in my commit message. I hope that
> can justify that this patch (even if extremly simple) can still be considered
> as acceptable upstream even without uffd-wp series.
> If you still insist on this patch not suitable for standalone merging and
> especially if some other reviewer would think the same, I can move it back to
> uffd-wp series for sure. Then I'll repost this series with 4 patches only.
I won't insist, the code looks correct and it doesn't make things any less
clear so you can put my Reviewed-by on it and perhaps leave it to Andrew or
another reviewer to determine if this should be taken in this series or as part
of a future uffd-wp series.
> In all cases, thanks for looking at the series.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-15 3:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-08 16:35 [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: A few cleanup patches around zap, shmem and uffd Peter Xu
2021-09-08 16:35 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] mm/shmem: Unconditionally set pte dirty in mfill_atomic_install_pte Peter Xu
2021-09-08 16:36 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] mm: Clear vmf->pte after pte_unmap_same() returns Peter Xu
2021-09-08 16:36 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] mm: Drop first_index/last_index in zap_details Peter Xu
2021-09-09 2:54 ` Liam Howlett
2021-09-09 18:13 ` Peter Xu
2021-09-08 16:36 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] mm: Add zap_skip_check_mapping() helper Peter Xu
2021-09-09 1:16 ` Alistair Popple
2021-09-08 16:36 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] mm: Add ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP and zap_flags Peter Xu
2021-09-15 2:25 ` Alistair Popple
2021-09-15 2:52 ` Peter Xu
2021-09-15 3:21 ` Alistair Popple [this message]
2021-09-15 4:01 ` Peter Xu
2021-09-14 16:37 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: A few cleanup patches around zap, shmem and uffd Peter Xu
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mm: Add ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP and zap_flags' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).