From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6AC0E91265 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id F31FC6B0088; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id ED8506B0089; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:25:38 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E05166B008A; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:25:38 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0AB6B0088 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A31A1404C2 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:25:38 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 84410626356.29.441CC48 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A84C000E for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:25:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of dev.jain@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dev.jain@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1770301536; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=09yTAKIMLJX3MbLCONT/iqUJaPKneDPDdQFcKJzvMB0=; b=6xF4KstKd3uHjGQczjgVUDmLJcYpxh980MnPaCJ+SoXokm8YqGq/ttAIHcsB2KJISGGgdg qxW13SXMkUTGPByQO4yNPinpJe+/iYaXT/7kmT4j9P20W6aKxpp7sjK49Ldb7Ob69EI2Nv 3jUUj7fDj1aQCPOc1pkKriuy2Z3yCt4= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1770301536; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=YxiCOSQO+YiQuAaaEOTJXwq9Py+y6xrqNjBv28aq+mu2A1EQPfmvT+3nkF9H1FqVXjurnZ m9r1dTsDDoEiDazKYlb/36cUqT2U2F9ebvUV8Ooaz+x326W1+iI83JMIEcWkYPmeQSmkGw gkHZYq/cBWYkJRaCvp39eIlXua4vw4I= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of dev.jain@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dev.jain@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF826339; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 06:25:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.163.132.75] (unknown [10.163.132.75]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E16753F73F; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 06:25:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9508744b-e5d5-49ef-825f-eef683892541@arm.com> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 19:55:28 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-new v6 2/5] mm: khugepaged: refine scan progress number To: "David Hildenbrand (arm)" , Vernon Yang Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com, ziy@nvidia.com, baohua@kernel.org, lance.yang@linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vernon Yang References: <20260201122554.1470071-1-vernon2gm@gmail.com> <20260201122554.1470071-3-vernon2gm@gmail.com> <85e8ded9-a9eb-4663-9c96-93af60006fb6@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Dev Jain In-Reply-To: <85e8ded9-a9eb-4663-9c96-93af60006fb6@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 64A84C000E X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Stat-Signature: 66swnm7btastn46fbegam8npg6bi6par X-HE-Tag: 1770301536-351442 X-HE-Meta: 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 FlThsbE/ Mp18G/sQ+Q80n02f2GmYC5KQWVYSYWQqfUgSWJtsZ9yWIJFoEK5Y2Y/Wdhme4uggaf6ae0ZlZgQA+ZuWgEciz6H2EXY1M3WD5eXLCNPDE3OGPEtNc5k4emcwf2KR4BPZEjQxQvktKC5GQiU61KT0syWXFD3yKBrg5PAXG9+YZreS7/Hrh4QegQQ9VFbRqmUfvtqpJ X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 05/02/26 5:41 pm, David Hildenbrand (arm) wrote: > On 2/5/26 07:08, Vernon Yang wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 5:35 AM David Hildenbrand (arm) >> wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> +     if (cur_progress) { >>>> +             if (_pte >= pte + HPAGE_PMD_NR) >>>> +                     *cur_progress = HPAGE_PMD_NR; >>>> +             else >>>> +                     *cur_progress = _pte - pte + 1; >>> >>> *cur_progress = max(_pte - pte + 1, HPAGE_PMD_NR); >> >> I guess, your meaning is "min(_pte - pte + 1, HPAGE_PMD_NR)", not max(). > > Yes! > >> >>> ? >>> >>> It's still a bit nasty, though. >>> >>> Can't we just add one at the beginning of the loop and let the compiler >>> optimize that? ;) >> >> I'm also worried that the compiler can't optimize this since the body of >> the loop is complex, as with Dev's opinion [1]. > > Why do we even have to optimize this? :) > > Premature ... ? :) I mean .... we don't, but the alternate is a one liner using max(). The objective is to compute the number of iterations of the for-loop. It just seems weird to me to track that in the loop, when we have the loop iterator, which *literally* does that only. Anyhow, I won't shout in any case : ) If you deem incrementing in the loop prettier, that's fine.