Message ID | 20230802095346.87449-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | mm: migrate: more folio conversion | expand |
On 02.08.23 11:53, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> This patch series converts several functions to use folio in migrate.c.
Please clearly spell out in the patch descriptions when you are changing
mapcount logic and which effects that might have (both, positive and
negative) for PTE-mapped THP.
On 2023/8/2 19:47, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 02.08.23 11:53, Kefeng Wang wrote: >> This patch series converts several functions to use folio in migrate.c. > > Please clearly spell out in the patch descriptions when you are changing > mapcount logic and which effects that might have (both, positive and > negative) for PTE-mapped THP. Oh, I see your comments on another mail[1], the folio_estimated_sharers() is not good to evaluate the sharing by multiple processes, will read more history of the mail's discussion, maybe just ignore the first three patches. Thank. [1] [PATCH 0/2] don't use mapcount() to check large folio sharing >
On 02.08.23 14:38, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > On 2023/8/2 19:47, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 02.08.23 11:53, Kefeng Wang wrote: >>> This patch series converts several functions to use folio in migrate.c. >> >> Please clearly spell out in the patch descriptions when you are changing >> mapcount logic and which effects that might have (both, positive and >> negative) for PTE-mapped THP. > > Oh, I see your comments on another mail[1], the folio_estimated_sharers() > is not good to evaluate the sharing by multiple processes, will read more > history of the mail's discussion, maybe just ignore the first three patches. It might be good enough for some cases right now. My point is that we better just clearly spell out the possible effects of such a change. (so far you didn't even mention them, and that's sub-optimal when buried in a "folio" conversion that better shouldn't change the functionality without spelling it out)