linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] damon: Convert damon_pa_mark_accessed_or

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOzc2pwexH7Phhg_Dx0_9dg5_3n=uKSwbpWDKBbNQdY0N97U-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 18:43:57 -0800
From:   Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>
To:     SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, damon@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] damon: Convert damon_pa_mark_accessed_or_deactivate()
 to use folios

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 4:56 PM SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Vishal,
>
>
> Thank you for this patch.
>
> Nit pick.  Could we please replace 'damon:' on the subject with 'mm/damon:' to
> look more consistent with other DAMON patches?

Thanks for looking over this patch! I'll make the subject mm/damon in a v2.

> On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:21:57 -0800 "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > This change replaces 2 calls to compound_head() with one.
>
> I guess you mean _compound_head() calls in page_folio() that called from
> mark_page_accessed() and folio_mark_accessed().  However, deactivate_page()
> calls page_folio() anyway, so this patch doesn't reduce the number of calls to
> one but keep the number, correct?  Am I missing something?  If I'm not, I'd
> like to clean up the wording.

The 2 calls I was referring to were from mark_page_accessed() and put_page().
As you've noticed, deactivate_page() still calls page_folio() here :).

> > This is in preparation for the conversion of deactivate_page() to
> > deactivate_folio().
>
> I think folio_deactivate() might be a more consistent naming.  What do you
> think?

I do like the name folio_deactivate() better than deactivate_folio(), I'll
change that in v2 as well.