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 1C905C48BF6 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:07:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 748CC6B00DA; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6F8B76B00DB; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:07:48 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5BFF86B00DC; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:07:48 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A05D6B00DA for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EE380836 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:07:48 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81844717416.03.14A1F8D Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C2EA001C for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=dGNU19gP; spf=pass (imf25.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1709208466; 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=H+Xze/yxxajNWL1KhoG/Ul/vP6wDJGvmG9gREiC46JA=; b=WxoLxdTDRIZ2VtlhjTzIlOoA/HxzgshruvYRRSvgqf6n3Bxg0gfR2EJfVXtdLpHFOs8onZ OUOrEy2uEn4x+JOYmF77aNBU9C+9eqNmycFqH7llQZnUoTLpRu5PIWrLCutsaPbaWMitUc 2I2W6F3pwfWVgVaTUtLlzIGDNItmw5k= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=dGNU19gP; spf=pass (imf25.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1709208466; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ueRTD9KurdCMlMYr4KDwEtMShG2wtznOH2ThzqaSHrIzUzVD7i8/qoSX+R1+dhq0itZO1W ZYPNcyP2gVETyjq2NejDBACcXtdvA+/DzaYDu483Ro4ZfVs8vuwgbtiOLpHDWELD0Xv8RL xc5JpoPDqxsxZv2Fkpz9Tlo0PHLrjrk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1709208465; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=H+Xze/yxxajNWL1KhoG/Ul/vP6wDJGvmG9gREiC46JA=; b=dGNU19gPDlUdx3hrfOOen5/Qh93PRipLzZNvS9LguNYRxvYlI66vuGNlkBM1RiVyKlxr/Y yf/A801z/5d/JX7gaVsd5GF1/plOLlgUq1l8oHYRipkQzWZXOlnXQsA9vqpfxSKsyI3h+/ gZUQant7prnz/m+bMQSMwhXbL0XVntc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-641-N4lH7H4rMUC6jgPKjgmmBA-1; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:07:40 -0500 X-MC-Unique: N4lH7H4rMUC6jgPKjgmmBA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 155863C100B0; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:07:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.72.116.6]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4B63492BE2; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:07:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:07:35 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: "Huang, Rulin" Cc: urezki@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, colin.king@intel.com, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, lstoakes@gmail.com, tianyou.li@intel.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com, wangyang.guo@intel.com, zhiguo.zhou@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mm/vmalloc: lock contention optimization under multi-threading Message-ID: References: <20240229082611.4104839-1-rulin.huang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 55C2EA001C X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: hxyxxnqq7se6d5a1xhd8gmpaz9p5mzhj X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-HE-Tag: 1709208466-683514 X-HE-Meta: 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 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 02/29/24 at 04:31pm, Huang, Rulin wrote: > Apologizes for the confusions the original format led to and thanks so > much for your guidance which will surely enhance the efficiency when > communicating with the kernel community. > > We've submitted the v6 of the patch, which more rigorously checks > va_flag with BUG_ON, and at the same time ensures the additional > performance overhead is subtle. In this modification we also moved the > position of the macros because the definition of VMAP_RAM should be > placed before alloc_vmap_area(). > > Much appreciation from you and Uladzislau on the code refinement. And at > the same time, we'd also respect the internal review comments and > suggestions from Tim and Colin, without which this patch cannot be > qualified to be sent out for your review. Although the current > implementation has been much different from its first version, I'd still > recommend properly recognizing their contributions with the "review-by" > tag. Does it make sense? Just checked Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, seems below tags are more appropriate? Because the work you mentioned is your internal cooperation and effort, may not be related to upstream patch reviewing. Co-developed-by: "Chen, Tim C" Signed-off-by: "Chen, Tim C" Co-developed-by: "King, Colin" Signed-off-by: "King, Colin"