[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <709b459a-3c71-49b1-7ac1-3144ae0fa89a@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:55:13 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>
Cc: jgg@...dia.com, Felix.Kuehling@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
rcampbell@...dia.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, jglisse@...hat.com,
apopple@...dia.com, willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: add vm_normal_lru_pages for LRU handled pages
only
On 31.03.22 10:53, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> - page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, pte);
>> + page = vm_normal_lru_page(vma, addr, pte);
>
> Why can't this deal with ZONE_DEVICE pages? It certainly has
> nothing do with a LRU I think. In fact being able to have
> stats that count say the number of device pages here would
> probably be useful at some point.
>
> In general I find the vm_normal_lru_page vs vm_normal_page
> API highly confusing. An explicit check for zone device pages
> in the dozen or so spots that care has a much better documentation
> value, especially if accompanied by comments where it isn't entirely
> obvious.
What's your thought on FOLL_LRU?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists