[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b013b637-a3d6-9caf-32d4-9c04fac29c64@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:04:53 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hannes@...xchg.org,
mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mika.penttila@...tfour.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, songmuchun@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] mm: free user PTE page table pages
On 2021/9/2 AM1:55, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 07:49:23PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 01.09.21 19:10, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:19:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't think it works everywhere, bit it works in a lot of places,
>>>>> and it is a heck of a lot better than what is proposed here. I'd
>>>>> rather see the places that can use it be moved, and the few places
>>>>> that can't be opencoded.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I used ptep_get_map_lock() and friends. But hacking directly into
>>>> ptep_map_lock() and friends wasn't possible due to all the corner cases.
>>>
>>> Sure, I'm not surprised you can't get every single case, but that just
>>> suggest we need two API families, today's to support the special cases
>>> and a different one for the other regular simple cases.
>>>
>>> A new function family pte_try_map/_locked() and paired unmap that can
>>> internally do the recounting and THP trickery and convert the easy
>>> callsites.
>>>
>>> Very rough counting suggest at least half of the pte_offset_map_lock()
>>> call sites can trivially use the simpler API.
>>>
>>> The other cases can stay as is and get open coded refcounts, or maybe
>>> someone will have a better idea once they are more clearly identified.
>>>
>>> But I don't think we should take a performance hit of additional
>>> atomics in cases like GUP where this is trivially delt with by using a
>>> better API.
>>
>> Right, but as I said in the cover letter, we can happily optimize once we
>> have the basic infrastructure in place and properly reviewed. Getting rid of
>> some unnecessary atomics by introducing additional fancy helpers falls under
>> that category.
>
> I'm not sure I agree given how big and wide this patch series is. It
> would be easier to review if it was touching less places. The helpers
> are not fancy, it is a logical re-arrangement of existing code that
> shrinks the LOC of this series and makes it more reviewable.
>
> Or stated another way, a niche feature like this try much harder not
> to add more complexity everywhere.
Totally agree, I will rework this patch series based on you and David's
suggestions.
Thank you very much,
Qi
>
> Jason
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists