[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <F5F9F9AF-4557-45D5-97FC-8BA1143FCA2F@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:45:01 -0400
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>, Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>, Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] mm: split folio_pte_batch() into folio_pte_batch()
and folio_pte_batch_ext()
On 27 Jun 2025, at 7:55, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Many users (including upcoming ones) don't really need the flags etc,
> and can live with a function call.
>
> So let's provide a basic, non-inlined folio_pte_batch().
>
> In zap_present_ptes(), where we care about performance, the compiler
> already seem to generate a call to a common inlined folio_pte_batch()
> variant, shared with fork() code. So calling the new non-inlined variant
> should not make a difference.
>
> While at it, drop the "addr" parameter that is unused.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> ---
> mm/internal.h | 11 ++++++++---
> mm/madvise.c | 4 ++--
> mm/memory.c | 6 ++----
> mm/mempolicy.c | 3 +--
> mm/mlock.c | 3 +--
> mm/mremap.c | 3 +--
> mm/rmap.c | 3 +--
> mm/util.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 8 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
Nice cleanup. Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists