Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Introduce new function vm_insert_kmem_page

From: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	robin@protonic.nl, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, hjc@rock-chips.com,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
	airlied@linux.ie, robin.murphy@arm.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	treding@nvidia.com, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	aryabinin@virtuozzo.com, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
	tchibo@google.com, riel@redhat.com,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	ak@linux.intel.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux@dominikbrodowski.net, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	cpandya@codeaurora.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	mcgrof@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Introduce new function vm_insert_kmem_page
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 10:44:26 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFqt6zZCCPFE3sQ3u_gjiN8wwd99nwWatk9JRsiGxbCwhi91mg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72kRAZE9SyM4EkpaBZH03Ex0Z=4Pk2iOuc2jBDKTfKjHQg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:39 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 4:19 PM Miguel Ojeda
> > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >   1. Introduce the vmf_* API
> > >   2. Change all PF-users users to that (leaving all non-PF ones
> > > untouched!) -- if this is too big, you can split this patch into
> > > several patches, one per subsystem, etc.
> >
> > We are done with step 2. All the PF-users are converted to use
> > vmf_insert_page. ( Ref - linux-next-20181005)
>
> They are not supposed to be "steps". You did it with 70+ commits (!!)
> over the course of several months. Why a tree wasn't created, stuff
> developed there, and when done, submitted it for review?

Because we already have a plan for entire vm_fault_t migration and
the * instruction * was to send one patch per driver.
>
> > >
> > > Otherwise, if you want to pursue Matthew's idea:
> > >
> > >   4. Introduce the vm_insert_range (possibly leveraging
> > > vm_insert_page, or not; you have to see what is best).
> > >   5. Replace those callers that can take advantage of vm_insert_range
> > >   6. Remove vm_insert_page and replace callers with vm_insert_range
> > > (only if it is not worth to keep vm_insert_range, again justifying it
> > > *on its own merits*)
> >
> > Step 4 to 6, going to do it.  It is part of plan now :-)
> >
>
> Fine, but you haven't answered to the other parts of my email: you
> don't explain why you choose one alternative over the others, you
> simply keep changing the approach.

We are going in circles here. That you want to convert vm_insert_page
to vmf_insert_page for the PF case is fine and understood. However,
you don't *need* to introduce a new name for the remaining non-PF
cases if the function is going to be the exact same thing as before.
You say "The final goal is to remove vm_insert_page", but you haven't
justified *why* you need to remove that name.

I think I have given that answer. If we don't remove vm_insert_page,
future #PF caller will have option to use it. But those should be
restricted. How are we going to restrict vm_insert_page in one half
of kernel when other half is still using it  ?? Is there any way ? ( I don't
know)