LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Xu <>
To: Alistair Popple <>
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Hugh Dickins <>,, Miaohe Lin <>,
	David Hildenbrand <>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <>,
	Yang Shi <>,
	Matthew Wilcox <>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <>,
	Jerome Glisse <>,
	Liam Howlett <>,
	Mike Rapoport <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mm: Add ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP and zap_flags
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 00:01:24 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YUFwFGB2JElaBOGt@xz-m1.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2497776.C4p5gPNQJS@nvdebian>

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:21:30PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> 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.

Yes you're right, we can add a big enough comment above zap_details to state
that, but then it'll be reverted when adding the uffd-wp flag in the other
series, because uffd-wp will still needs a way to specify !SKIP_SWAP and
KEEP_UFFD_WP.  Then it'll make the "series split" make less sense as you said.

I split the series only because I hope it could ease the reviewers, and also
that's probably the only thing I can do now to still try to smooth the process
of having a complete uffd-wp finally got proper reviewed and merged.

> > 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.

Will do; thanks.

Peter Xu

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-15  4:01 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
2021-09-15  4:01         ` Peter Xu [this message]
2021-09-14 16:37 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] mm: A few cleanup patches around zap, shmem and uffd Peter Xu

Reply instructions:

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 \
    --in-reply-to=YUFwFGB2JElaBOGt@xz-m1.local \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --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).