[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <80dbf7fc-5c13-f43f-7b87-8273126562e9@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:25:43 -0700
From: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: document zone device struct page field usage
On 7/22/19 4:08 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 10:13:45PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 09:02:04AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:29:53PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
>>>> Struct page for ZONE_DEVICE private pages uses the page->mapping and
>>>> and page->index fields while the source anonymous pages are migrated to
>>>> device private memory. This is so rmap_walk() can find the page when
>>>> migrating the ZONE_DEVICE private page back to system memory.
>>>> ZONE_DEVICE pmem backed fsdax pages also use the page->mapping and
>>>> page->index fields when files are mapped into a process address space.
>>>>
>>>> Restructure struct page and add comments to make this more clear.
>>>
>>> NAK. I just got rid of this kind of foolishness from struct page,
>>> and you're making it harder to understand, not easier. The comments
>>> could be improved, but don't lay it out like this again.
>>
>> Was V1 of Ralphs patch ok? It seemed ok to me.
>
> Yes, v1 was fine. This seems like a regression.
>
This is about what people find "easiest to understand" and so
I'm not surprised that opinions differ.
What if I post a v3 based on v1 but remove the _zd_pad_* variables
that Christoph found misleading and add some more comments
about how the different ZONE_DEVICE types use the 3 remaining
words (basically the comment from v2)?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists