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 49686E91297 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:30:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AAF406B0089; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:30:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A5D0F6B008A; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:30:25 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 969036B0092; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:30:25 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B9E6B0089 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:30:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3766213B34A for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:30:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 84410638410.22.5ADBB87 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6258D4001A for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:30:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf11.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf11.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=1770301823; 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=kbGuWUKKZxIJ4VyHIs2tT7Am3jzrWJWN1tlp8PnhERU=; b=KCIU0cnsO3FEwdDH86kd25cIWSkPpqPCssWUk2YwLJRyIHuAYxNSeZh7Nj8QC8EMUigc2L ijSehBcdhXC2tw5k0ESWGfzC37waGXd2b504prgY36Lemu1grUv63IABE46JI8quXNElYC JYakReSY9g6r7JTV0LqYjOx3VLo0MKI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf11.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf11.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-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1770301823; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=doNHqmMCMO4y92xvPPXZbJ3jljeZqSVMa7VLT53WnD4nz8gJw5PT9oVg4YD63+7RolnSZ/ wBKDhlWNFHOFXghIGquLSCz/VuHw/oKs9WBU9N5jfkGvuWISF+ZETxTJrzo/VlOHzs+Ogt 9kTvmRCpD3nly5Nef/OVU9TbbkeT0/g= 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 EB4F3339; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 06:30:15 -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 D94F13F73F; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 06:30:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 20:00:15 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-new v6 2/5] mm: khugepaged: refine scan progress number From: Dev Jain 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> <9508744b-e5d5-49ef-825f-eef683892541@arm.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <9508744b-e5d5-49ef-825f-eef683892541@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam09 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6258D4001A X-Stat-Signature: om9c683b9cpytc3irux5r17yt1zjbpfw X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1770301823-260669 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1+KaXRl/qhxoCdia40gvdNkxoi7eUl04OzD5iVs8m1sj4UkVU7QbcMuwp9boAk3ODxamt40cYCItpVt4k/dQB+23JfCUEZKmDIJ460z804X1uXDpnhmCK9UNJlTo3qDzGesPjRWfKdihwYpACXr9OSD38bnkWxrGMDmp+C80ebBO1vu0xcfaVH4lLHCZkxmKGJQHgEULILIsMdy20trIl8dm4eJitXdsRIu9neQSYtEbU5RKxaBpqu/krVq6KFigQtz8g7unX5PhJPoFq/LoTqmtSkmoLwasbjUSaggFatZpP5xdVHDd5vZGkvLk4+w8SoIg2FHv0f9NJLfC4mNqvEH780/8K69TXSYUqId+ZHv64L+KcGK7Q0jlZ0+4gMexZSiMBy9YYZHBiZ+oAN5TiQO+vOktLh8tIDZnY11OThkAzt08hKzKwvwiEZMAiucL90aDKN4y4WOk41O035QzwATazqp6dvvavP6cOvJuORfBFMydcE4526CQ26rZtxxSRDaP7aZoc0ws428XLVtPT8p/jzfslJL7CWYVmWNY0X223qi7WI2QaOuLyxw6sPJJ29ypTrGNTFNmj8EiukxJarrm6XwJvudSjO2RE/vxm3GYOpDNpNdDvPgxtilUYuU8R06HuCE4m+1vfzCurrFjvm9clcGtI8pRq7fa+QjxTuYe3E4Dw6jbm6Qd7AW6qjmvZ9rw3SRJV+O86Xdn02KkKzCaJCIQDNR5sF3w5MhnaC/Yk6rS+XdrgQQi4xKw+6UKREp72Htcju/gOA5lDTHA+cDeX5AnpSN3SrNiw0Xnb5JNKMfGj5omGh3hrfJU5AWAY/N8XBkxR14JRrPFjdlvVzmS1VzVqPyYGMcVrMTXrfJckjoUIhIs06+c32mCaYNmW0FBZSD57+EVNsBDUzOaNRPTzwDIeOoAWpVsUwSFTANrlzqe7jngBrPxEddbVmiVoVsv0LAmqY DPvCrnzh 6D2g/4EMjMrXCj/GHwYQnMaovsOf/M5/bsoKMTeoMQhGhr4JM0xXH0USTgK6qkYJv90DASiq8W54K/0LYptG7aZ2+LTFlumgMYJUObyPv2PpCMyJEJ81xa69adA5yG26wLhHZy46hfw4MM9NiQ8AewAPeswcIH4HNCIeGVqG/3SWylmST9GTMzXZ4MTjdVbRafufo 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 7:55 pm, Dev Jain wrote: > 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. I realize I shouldn't have bolded out the "literally" - below I wrote that I won't shout, but the bold seems like shouting :) > > > > Anyhow, I won't shout in any case : ) If you deem incrementing in the > > loop prettier, that's fine. > >