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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB2CC433EF for ; Fri, 6 May 2022 00:53:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id ACEF86B0071; Thu, 5 May 2022 20:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A57996B0073; Thu, 5 May 2022 20:53:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 881676B0074; Thu, 5 May 2022 20:53:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730AA6B0071 for ; Thu, 5 May 2022 20:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F7C80703 for ; Fri, 6 May 2022 00:53:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79433494392.30.98B1C92 Received: from mail-lf1-f45.google.com (mail-lf1-f45.google.com [209.85.167.45]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAB240092 for ; Fri, 6 May 2022 00:53:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f45.google.com with SMTP id i10so10109682lfg.13 for ; Thu, 05 May 2022 17:53:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=C5GPnJUVP3BtQbsY0hrSBcmaxNZOUF97hX/9OQsx+nA=; b=nLZPkQ5PVl8ydEQfOubz8On/1Fq63lQN6lh/vZ5Aegg+xPA34KIVO26IrV87jX5wPe 8M10ylUu9YV8TQM8HP2/8undJLvbVcL1/dVTkVcECHb9CzEEqKq07m14/HgnXxA7Njia YFD9HYkWHYF6sWGhtvKCPmH/IStLKZu+wd185XNNJDESn6HYZEa+2g+/xT6nMw6+t8/g 39BKxahY18nOyAdMZrhMfCYQLCIMFGLV4qB/FupV+3jv+iDHAqrfEb52qkY/VpnQPsI8 KTvsIBhr+lDuXx6BCqyiYijMMAKSx6DWRCL3X9YV0fdlAgTdw+PmU7XeCeBdqNxsFuvW hzmg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=C5GPnJUVP3BtQbsY0hrSBcmaxNZOUF97hX/9OQsx+nA=; b=6XyBGRTddND0bZyNOzI8Rc8T83TDl5tW407WL/JsUK+XbpR80OMunPx9y0iRXygcbj 4r8i9tE8dcNPZ5Uft5PM+nflQlngiciLazzKNwGHs6dicdNgUU5lBAcvcY7ScWDZWfJf LNlfOy9Sf2NIj4fcGJ2SNDD38GEP6wW9c9XoH1FviEN3txjdc7qJJ/ArdLhkZUQ2MHhy CiNZYo+nm3J+SIWak4EVsRDSRNBbFSE3jEb9ayZFCQNmpFOVBZv8TIBPwxQNt34IOfZq PqCBPLKCMm5ykLyH9AMZ21xHng8j11DPIpghTL37JH6J4jxLANPS99kAW7hrBKQ4J3FQ ZgPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530p63/uVaWqUGE+sZ4ofjUYRZKJ2y/1sb7Zn8zfBgCQx1/9OvVQ vBZAuQMUBcLrMB7t2ZfffAzUZg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxBGAyRzcf0ZNYdABhMRx6y2moZzNV7QFboqJg1pD4XhwD22Dkio7DKSmS7KcErp6zO6RaPpQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3b87:b0:473:9e36:5f0d with SMTP id g7-20020a0565123b8700b004739e365f0dmr715960lfv.424.1651798393878; Thu, 05 May 2022 17:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from box.localdomain ([86.57.175.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c33-20020a05651223a100b0047255d21113sm443339lfv.66.2022.05.05.17.53.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 05 May 2022 17:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by box.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A1C92104AF0; Fri, 6 May 2022 03:54:58 +0300 (+03) Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 03:54:58 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: David Hildenbrand Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Joerg Roedel , Ard Biesheuvel , Andi Kleen , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Varad Gautam , Dario Faggioli , Dave Hansen , Brijesh Singh , Mike Rapoport , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 02/12] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory Message-ID: <20220506005458.jrebaho2w55ojwyb@box.shutemov.name> References: <20220425033934.68551-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220425033934.68551-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <2bb92a84-18f4-d007-9465-fdc19f6f1c86@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2bb92a84-18f4-d007-9465-fdc19f6f1c86@redhat.com> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 0CAB240092 X-Stat-Signature: g5jhnywjo3rtygtq8w3xpu3xdraxji9b Authentication-Results: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=shutemov-name.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.s=20210112 header.b=nLZPkQ5P; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of kirill@shutemov.name has no SPF policy when checking 209.85.167.45) smtp.mailfrom=kirill@shutemov.name X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1651798390-718974 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, May 03, 2022 at 10:21:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > > +/* > > + * Page acceptance can be very slow. Do not call under critical locks. > > + */ > > +static void accept_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order) > > +{ > > + phys_addr_t start = page_to_phys(page); > > + int i; > > + > > + accept_memory(start, start + (PAGE_SIZE << order)); > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++) { > > + if (PageUnaccepted(page + i)) > > + __ClearPageUnaccepted(page + i); > > + } > > +} > > What was the rationale of leaving PageUnaccepted() set on sub-pages when > merging pages? > > I'd just clear the flag when merging and avoid the loop here. You could > even assert here that we don't have any PageUnaccepted() on tail pages. Okay, fair enough. I will change the code. -- Kirill A. Shutemov