linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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