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]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98EFBC6FA8F for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:11:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 04F93440180; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 15:11:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id F41B7440178; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 15:11:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E093A440180; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 15:11:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E85440178 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 15:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin20.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9569480389 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:11:28 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81181714656.20.E460397 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BF1A0023 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:11:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=oe+LBcOa; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf25.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1693422686; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=Tqz/DZawdYZxdUO9cH0CNTKU0VPKN8BYJEeAbOf2UBM=; b=d9E3wF2A7ALTEs4pr/fs9bmwgX0cpbFHTvog6xoaZQLiKTQ/T/rToxQZi4o2hSq7XiPfVj gwftU6RKabhuX/dnqvx3U1NurC+guUQEngYprFOeCqDVqSoWuMCT8q56LyzWSl2xhg832r pJFAcroORDxH09ZLItlgh8DPvDP2Sqs= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=oe+LBcOa; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf25.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1693422686; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=h3rp7xglcOw/QnwCu92v5V16mdIMcEWSJh3H/MaNATVMO75Bm/nZnnEai4IVE04EckruRs CC5GRvOmYxIPdleUuoYMHdgysP4oSvml0+J9g1yTy90IeTVrq29q0fSsK/wcYzlTvmGco+ 6meg+k4WrN78vlTk4uRSHXpu5F+BlWM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=Tqz/DZawdYZxdUO9cH0CNTKU0VPKN8BYJEeAbOf2UBM=; b=oe+LBcOaZkEVCF8aJtKZlvfWSg ZhPQg99fcqS1AWvoK39kdwiB+SKWjXItaWk3dAAgcHfB2FVAE2ZeKq9EhhnnsxehM4JrCu0d3AFHV SOa60NHEU1h7Jfn154TvmjndfOdAHJBgxH8BjePTNgJRNbyojEQtxroskuLDOjFdjtbNJJlUp8mr9 zomm2H6pEf5PJjmOwHhroH9ekX4sPwNE5B0knDdAlygRyfdDuTSQ5Kg248kaPKPBwH74x+rImIsmc byLHGWpiEmHQkNG6tOD1W4FimhTEwUUfeMYxhs7KDd17cuvTCkHcHIlc10L4/ibzdy3NW08OeZ9x6 wIxJsDFQ==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qbQap-00ET8A-Fp; Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:11:07 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:11:07 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Ryan Roberts Cc: Will Deacon , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , Peter Zijlstra , Christian Borntraeger , Sven Schnelle , Arnd Bergmann , David Hildenbrand , Yu Zhao , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Yin Fengwei , Yang Shi , "Huang, Ying" , Zi Yan , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: Refector release_pages() Message-ID: References: <20230830095011.1228673-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <20230830095011.1228673-5-ryan.roberts@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230830095011.1228673-5-ryan.roberts@arm.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B3BF1A0023 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Stat-Signature: ihr7qkf787bhgwwcgj84aozzgedt89c1 X-HE-Tag: 1693422686-781819 X-HE-Meta: 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 jAkxkY+u ouaAS2xcHA7PomRIHbP4BX+FLlLItyThRwxUlFCSp7/rf1l+W/NHWyXjEbPGQYCI2NmX/EUFc2y0Gpr/uEY82kh8nG4yrhyEmp8oNDcG0uOUCbiWHu19KpKjDwvlVs28OInEWErsb7SoV0vK+UWggVcoPFRPgJSjx0jg+U18lRCmbEUpnq03bQUZi2A== 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: On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:50:10AM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote: > In preparation for implementing folios_put_refs() in the next patch, > refactor release_pages() into a set of helper functions, which can be > reused. The primary difference between release_pages() and > folios_put_refs() is how they iterate over the set of folios. The > per-folio actions are identical. As you noted, we have colliding patchsets. I'm not hugely happy with how patch 4 turned out, so I thought I'd send some addendum patches to my RFC series that implement pfn_range_put() (maybe should have been pfn_ranges_put()?) on top of my patch series. I think it's a bit nicer, but not quite as nice as it could be. I'm thinking about doing ... void release_unref_folios(struct folio_batch *folios) { struct lruvec *lruvec = NULL; unsigned long flags = 0; int i; for (i = 0; i < folios->nr; i++) { struct folio *folio = folios->folios[i]; free_swap_cache(folio); __page_cache_release(folio, &lruvec, &flags); } mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(folios); free_unref_folios(folios); } then this becomes: void folios_put(struct folio_batch *folios) { int i, j; for (i = 0, j = 0; i < folios->nr; i++) { struct folio *folio = folios->folios[i]; if (is_huge_zero_page(&folio->page)) continue; if (folio_is_zone_device(folio)) { if (put_devmap_managed_page(&folio->page)) continue; if (folio_put_testzero(folio)) free_zone_device_page(&folio->page); continue; } if (!folio_put_testzero(folio)) continue; if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) { free_huge_folio(folio); continue; } if (j != i) folios->folios[j] = folio; j++; } folios->nr = j; if (!j) return; release_unref_folios(folios); } and pfn_range_put() also becomes shorter and loses all the lruvec work. Thoughts?