From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C225BC33CB2 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 10:36:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7602620708 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 10:36:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7602620708 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id EC8F76B0005; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 05:36:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E52186B0006; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 05:36:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CF27A6B0007; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 05:36:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0171.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34E76B0005 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 05:36:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin01.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4D2181AEF0B for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 10:36:50 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76430318580.01.fog48_1e7c3a69f4952 X-HE-Tag: fog48_1e7c3a69f4952 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4291 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 10:36:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F35521FB; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 02:36:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from arrakis.emea.arm.com (arrakis.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.47]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1FB23F52E; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 02:36:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 10:36:40 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Qian Cai Cc: Mark Rutland , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , James Hogan , Heiko Carstens , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe , Michael Ellerman , Vlastimil Babka , x86@kernel.org, Russell King - ARM Linux , Matthew Wilcox , Steven Price , Tetsuo Handa , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, Kees Cook , Anshuman Khandual , Masahiro Yamada , Dan Williams , Mark Brown , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Thomas Gleixner , Gerald Schaefer , Christophe Leroy , Sri Krishna chowdary , Dave Hansen , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ard Biesheuvel , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Burton , Mike Rapoport , Vineet Gupta , Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH V12] mm/debug: Add tests validating architecture page table helpers Message-ID: <20200129103640.GA668562@arrakis.emea.arm.com> References: <20200128174709.GK655507@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <69091BA4-18C4-4425-A5E2-31FBE4654AF9@lca.pw> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <69091BA4-18C4-4425-A5E2-31FBE4654AF9@lca.pw> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 02:07:10PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote: > On Jan 28, 2020, at 12:47 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > The primary goal here is not finding regressions but having clearly > > defined semantics of the page table accessors across architectures. x86 > > and arm64 are a good starting point and other architectures will be > > enabled as they are aligned to the same semantics. > > This still does not answer the fundamental question. If this test is > simply inefficient to find bugs, Who said this is inefficient (other than you)? > who wants to spend time to use it regularly? Arch maintainers, mm maintainers introducing new macros or assuming certain new semantics of the existing macros. > If this is just one off test that may get running once in a few years > (when introducing a new arch), how does it justify the ongoing cost to > maintain it? You are really missing the point. It's not only for a new arch but changes to existing arch code. And if the arch code churn in this area is relatively small, I'd expect a similarly small cost of maintaining this test. If you only turn DEBUG_VM on once every few years, don't generalise this to the rest of the kernel developers (as others pointed out, this test is default y if DEBUG_VM). Anyway, I think that's a pointless discussion, so not going to reply further (unless you have technical content to add). -- Catalin