linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
	maple-tree@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] simplify split calculation
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 21:02:21 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4w3aqfkzvg7xhaetkjnr5lqvzuemoxyhtfxy36vvmf34bxlrgx@a4jqm6sar2o6> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241129203139.d01376d8beab1f6ef485aa12@linux-foundation.org>

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [241129 23:31]:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:16:13 +0000 Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In version 1 [1], we found current split would result into deficient node.
> > 
> > By discussion, current implementation would lead to jitter problem. Since this
> > is a rare case in real world, we decide to simplify the split calculation.
> > 
> > Patch 1: simplify split calculation
> > Patch 2: add a test case to check deficient node
> > Patch 3: validate deficient node except for root node
> > 
> > [1]: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241020024628.22469-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com
> 
> There's nothing here which is really useful as a [0/n] overview.
> 
> Why is [1/3] being proposed for -stable?  The changelog doesn't
> describe what benefit such a backport would provide to -stable users.
> 

The split calculation may cause an insufficient node in rare cases.
This could cause issues down the line for the tree during merging
operations, which would lead to wasted space at best and stability
issues at worse.  Although we haven't seen an insufficient node occur
(or at least not cause issues), it seems prudent to backport the fix to
remove the risk.

The benefit is to remove risk from tree operations by ensuring the nodes
remain in a known good (and well tested) state.

Does that seem reasonable?  I'd be happy to hear any guidance you can
provide for such issues and if you think it is worth sending to stable.

Thanks,
Liam



      reply	other threads:[~2024-12-01  2:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-11-13  3:16 Wei Yang
2024-11-13  3:16 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] maple_tree: " Wei Yang
2024-11-13 18:38   ` Liam R. Howlett
2024-11-13  3:16 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] maple_tree: add a test check deficient node Wei Yang
2024-11-13 18:40   ` Liam R. Howlett
2024-11-13  3:16 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] maple_tree: only root node could be deficient Wei Yang
2024-11-13 18:39 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] simplify split calculation Liam R. Howlett
2024-11-14  0:53   ` Wei Yang
2024-11-30  4:31 ` Andrew Morton
2024-12-01  2:02   ` Liam R. Howlett [this message]

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4w3aqfkzvg7xhaetkjnr5lqvzuemoxyhtfxy36vvmf34bxlrgx@a4jqm6sar2o6 \
    --to=liam.howlett@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=maple-tree@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox