[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f81f5eaa-109e-666e-7020-84c090721a56@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:03:38 -0400
From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
x86@...nel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
willy@...radead.org, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [v6 08/15] mm: zero struct pages during initialization
> I believe this deserves much more detailed explanation why this is safe.
> What actually prevents any pfn walker from seeing an uninitialized
> struct page? Please make your assumptions explicit in the commit log so
> that we can check them independently.
There is nothing prevents pfn walkers from walk over any struct pages
deferred and non-deferred. However, during boot before deferred pages
are initialized we have just a few places that do that, and all of those
cases are fixed in this patchset.
> Also this is done with some purpose which is the perfmance, right? You
> have mentioned that in the cover letter but if somebody is going to read
> through git logs this wouldn't be obvious from the specific commit.
> So add that information here as well. Especially numbers will be
> interesting.
I will add more performance data to this patch comment.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists