[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c6990d62-a456-b7c5-f128-311ee758c161@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 19:44:02 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/gup: adjust stale comment for RCU GUP-fast
>>> It can be dropped later if you want to rework the thp collapse side and
>>> finally remove IPI dependency on fast-gup, but so far it seems to me it's
>>> still needed. Or just drop this patch until that rework happens?
>>
>> The doc as is is obviously stale, why drop this patch?
>>
>> We should see a fix for the THP collapse issue very soon I guess. Most
>> probably this patch will go upstream after that fix.
>
> No objection to have this patch alone as the removal statement is only
> about "thp split". But IMHO this patch alone didn't really help a great
> lot, especially if you plan to have more to come that is very relevant to
> this, so it'll be clearer to put them together. Your call.
I can hold off the resend until the the fix is in place. Then I can add
to the description that we are not aware of remaining IPI dependencies,
and one undocumented case was broken and got fixed without the need for
IPIs.
Thanks!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists