From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Sauerwein, David" <dssauerw@amazon.de>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/7] mm: Optimise SPARSEMEM implementation of for_each_valid_pfn()
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 09:01:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5e576e6750f4ead28c94d7a54600dad875a75083.camel@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z_N5ps86xJmewe_P@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]
On Mon, 2025-04-07 at 10:07 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 04:59:56PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> >
> > There's no point in checking the section and subsection bitmap for *every*
> > PFN in the same section; they're either all valid or they aren't.
>
> Don't you want to merge this with the previous commit?
Maybe. Or at least the previous commit should be using the 'return -1'
model to minimise the differences.
To start with though, I wanted it to be reviewable as an incremental
patch to what we'd already been discussing. (And I figured there was at
least a non-zero chance of you not liking it just because it's too
complex, so the whole thing is easy to drop this way).
Even after review, keeping it as a separate patch means it's easily
revertible if we find we want to go back to the simpler version.
[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5069 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-07 8:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-04 15:59 [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] mm: Introduce for_each_valid_pfn() and use it from reserve_bootmem_region() David Woodhouse
2025-04-04 15:59 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/7] mm: Implement for_each_valid_pfn() for CONFIG_FLATMEM David Woodhouse
2025-04-07 6:54 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-04-07 7:56 ` David Woodhouse
2025-04-04 15:59 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/7] mm: Implement for_each_valid_pfn() for CONFIG_SPARSEMEM David Woodhouse
2025-04-04 15:59 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/7] mm: Optimise SPARSEMEM implementation of for_each_valid_pfn() David Woodhouse
2025-04-07 7:07 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-04-07 8:01 ` David Woodhouse [this message]
2025-04-04 15:59 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] mm, PM: Use for_each_valid_pfn() in kernel/power/snapshot.c David Woodhouse
2025-04-04 15:59 ` [RFC PATCH v2 6/7] mm, x86: Use for_each_valid_pfn() from __ioremap_check_ram() David Woodhouse
2025-04-04 15:59 ` [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] mm: use for_each_valid_pfn() in memory_hotplug David Woodhouse
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=5e576e6750f4ead28c94d7a54600dad875a75083.camel@infradead.org \
--to=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dssauerw@amazon.de \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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