On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 19:25 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 12:40:48PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 17:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > Why can't we skip the ->active_mm swizzle and keep ->active_mm ==
> > > ->mm.
> > > 
> > > Doing the swizzle but not the refcount just makes me itch.
> > 
> > I am working on that now, it adds another 7-8
> > patches on top of this series.
> 
> I thought those were taking ->active_mm out entirely, not avoiding
> the
> swizzle, but I might have missed something in the middle :-)

At this point, only the fact that ->active_mm is still
being used by a few places in the code :)

> > The big question is, do we want this optimization
> > to wait for further cleanups, or should we run with
> > code that seems to be stable right now, and put
> > additional cleanups and enhancements on top of it
> > later?
> 
> At the very least the Changelog needs to explain why we cannot do
> away
> with the swizzle now and how doing the swizzle without the
> refcounting
> is not completely broken (I think I see, but urgh).

The changelog for patches 9 & 10 explains, I think.

What is missing from my explanation?

How would you like to see it explained?

-- 
All Rights Reversed.