From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f200.google.com (mail-wr0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451846B002E for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 23:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f200.google.com with SMTP id 31so14902456wrr.2 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 20:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id f16sor8978955edj.27.2018.04.16.20.00.58 for (Google Transport Security); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 20:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:54:04 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Various PageFlags cleanups Message-ID: <20180416125404.v7pcjrz6ph2sah5v@node.shutemov.name> References: <20180414043145.3953-1-willy@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180414043145.3953-1-willy@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Matthew Wilcox , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Pavel Tatashin On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 09:31:37PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > From: Matthew Wilcox > > I was trying to understand how it was safe to test PageLocked on a tail > page and started looking at how the pageflag policies were implemented. > I found three actual bugs (patches 5, 7 & 8), improved the documentation > and renamed a pile of things to be more readily explainable. That's a great cleanup. Thanks for dealing with the mess I've created ;) It would be nice to see overal effect on code size and *some* performance numbers. That's rather hot code path. -- Kirill A. Shutemov