From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: mm: mmu_gather: do not define delayed_rmap if not used
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:52:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh-oBpkN8AKALDkeTcVRzkUqqUyFevCNcCy3F76ogGonA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3SWTXMotahiqvBO@li-4a3a4a4c-28e5-11b2-a85c-a8d192c6f089.ibm.com>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:51 PM Alexander Gordeev
<agordeev@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> In cases the delayed rmap removal is not used (which are
> currently UP and s390) skip delayed_rmap flag and make
> the related code paths no-op.
So I'm not convinced about this patch.
I particularly dislike adding even more #ifdef's around the data
structure - it already is pretty nasty, and it was hard to see where
things were initialized.
The only actual code impact of this is in tlb_next_batch(), which
tests for "do I have delayed rmaps pending, in which case I won't add
new batches". Everything else is already either optimized away, or
just "one bit declared in a structure that already has bitfields and
has room for several extra bits":
And that "I need to allocate new batches" case really doesn't matter
anyway - it's not even build at all on s390, and on UP where it's
there but technically pointless to have the test it really isn't
noticeable.
So the previous patch I was "this shouldn't actually _matter_, but it
does seem cleaner to do it this way".
But _this_ patch makes me go "it still doesn't matter, but now this
patch is actually adding extra infrastructure for the 'not-mattering'
case".
So I don't _hate_ this patch, but I think this actually makes the
current mess wrt our 'struct mmu_gather' worse rather than better.
That structure is already a pain, with horrendous initialization and
different bit-fields having different lifetimes. I'd rather have one
unconditional simple bitfield, than have another bitfield that has
conditional complications.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-16 17:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-09 20:30 [PATCH 1/4] mm: introduce 'encoded' page pointers with embedded extra bits Linus Torvalds
2022-11-09 20:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] mm: teach release_pages() to take an array of encoded page pointers too Linus Torvalds
2022-11-16 9:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-11-09 20:30 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm: mmu_gather: prepare to gather encoded page pointers with flags Linus Torvalds
2022-11-09 20:30 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: delay page_remove_rmap() until after the TLB has been flushed Linus Torvalds
2022-11-09 20:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-11-09 21:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-11-16 7:47 ` Alexander Gordeev
2022-11-16 7:49 ` mm: mmu_gather: do not expose delayed_rmap flag Alexander Gordeev
2022-11-16 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-11-16 7:50 ` mm: mmu_gather: do not define delayed_rmap if not used Alexander Gordeev
2022-11-16 17:52 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2022-11-16 7:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm: mmu_gather: turn delayed rmap macros into inlines Alexander Gordeev
2022-11-16 7:55 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: mmu_gather: rename tlb_delay_rmap() function Alexander Gordeev
2022-11-16 17:39 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm: delay page_remove_rmap() until after the TLB has been flushed Linus Torvalds
2022-11-16 9:15 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm: introduce 'encoded' page pointers with embedded extra bits David Hildenbrand
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='CAHk-=wh-oBpkN8AKALDkeTcVRzkUqqUyFevCNcCy3F76ogGonA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=svens@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