From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751446AbdGZNeb (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:34:31 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60856 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750783AbdGZNe3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:34:29 -0400 From: Punit Agrawal To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Naoya Horiguchi , , , , , , , , Mike Kravetz Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset() consistent and document behaviour References: <20170725154114.24131-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20170725154114.24131-2-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20170726085038.GB2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170726085325.GC2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87bmo7jt31.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20170726123357.GP2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170726124704.GQ2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:34:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170726124704.GQ2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> (Michal Hocko's message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:47:04 +0200") Message-ID: <8760efjp98.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Michal Hocko writes: > On Wed 26-07-17 14:33:57, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Wed 26-07-17 13:11:46, Punit Agrawal wrote: > [...] >> > I've been running tests from mce-test suite and libhugetlbfs for similar >> > changes we did on arm64. There could be assumptions that were not >> > exercised but I'm not sure how to check for all the possible usages. >> > >> > Do you have any other suggestions that can help improve confidence in >> > the patch? >> >> Unfortunatelly I don't. I just know there were many subtle assumptions >> all over the place so I am rather careful to not touch the code unless >> really necessary. >> >> That being said, I am not opposing your patch. > > Let me be more specific. I am not opposing your patch but we should > definitely need more reviewers to have a look. I am not seeing any > immediate problems with it but I do not see a large improvements either > (slightly less nightmare doesn't make me sleep all that well ;)). So I > will leave the decisions to others. I hear you - I'd definitely appreciate more eyes on the code change and description. Thanks for taking a look. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Punit Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset() consistent and document behaviour Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:34:27 +0100 Message-ID: <8760efjp98.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20170725154114.24131-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20170725154114.24131-2-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20170726085038.GB2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170726085325.GC2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87bmo7jt31.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20170726123357.GP2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170726124704.GQ2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60856 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750783AbdGZNe3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:34:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170726124704.GQ2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> (Michal Hocko's message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:47:04 +0200") Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Naoya Horiguchi , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, steve.capper@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, Mike Kravetz Michal Hocko writes: > On Wed 26-07-17 14:33:57, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Wed 26-07-17 13:11:46, Punit Agrawal wrote: > [...] >> > I've been running tests from mce-test suite and libhugetlbfs for similar >> > changes we did on arm64. There could be assumptions that were not >> > exercised but I'm not sure how to check for all the possible usages. >> > >> > Do you have any other suggestions that can help improve confidence in >> > the patch? >> >> Unfortunatelly I don't. I just know there were many subtle assumptions >> all over the place so I am rather careful to not touch the code unless >> really necessary. >> >> That being said, I am not opposing your patch. > > Let me be more specific. I am not opposing your patch but we should > definitely need more reviewers to have a look. I am not seeing any > immediate problems with it but I do not see a large improvements either > (slightly less nightmare doesn't make me sleep all that well ;)). So I > will leave the decisions to others. I hear you - I'd definitely appreciate more eyes on the code change and description. Thanks for taking a look. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f70.google.com (mail-pg0-f70.google.com [74.125.83.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9516B0387 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg0-f70.google.com with SMTP id k190so215151404pgk.8 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a8si10232318ple.118.2017.07.26.06.34.30 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:34:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Punit Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset() consistent and document behaviour References: <20170725154114.24131-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20170725154114.24131-2-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20170726085038.GB2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170726085325.GC2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87bmo7jt31.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20170726123357.GP2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170726124704.GQ2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:34:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170726124704.GQ2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> (Michal Hocko's message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:47:04 +0200") Message-ID: <8760efjp98.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Naoya Horiguchi , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, steve.capper@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, Mike Kravetz Michal Hocko writes: > On Wed 26-07-17 14:33:57, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Wed 26-07-17 13:11:46, Punit Agrawal wrote: > [...] >> > I've been running tests from mce-test suite and libhugetlbfs for similar >> > changes we did on arm64. There could be assumptions that were not >> > exercised but I'm not sure how to check for all the possible usages. >> > >> > Do you have any other suggestions that can help improve confidence in >> > the patch? >> >> Unfortunatelly I don't. I just know there were many subtle assumptions >> all over the place so I am rather careful to not touch the code unless >> really necessary. >> >> That being said, I am not opposing your patch. > > Let me be more specific. I am not opposing your patch but we should > definitely need more reviewers to have a look. I am not seeing any > immediate problems with it but I do not see a large improvements either > (slightly less nightmare doesn't make me sleep all that well ;)). So I > will leave the decisions to others. I hear you - I'd definitely appreciate more eyes on the code change and description. Thanks for taking a look. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org