Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751439AbeAPO7s (ORCPT + 1 other); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:59:48 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:35569 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750790AbeAPO7p (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:59:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 06:58:46 -0800 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Laurent Dufour Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, mhocko@kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz, benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , hpa@zytor.com, Will Deacon , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrea Arcangeli , Alexei Starovoitov , kemi.wang@intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, Tim Chen , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 22/24] mm: Speculative page fault handler return VMA Message-ID: <20180116145846.GE30073@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <1515777968-867-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1515777968-867-23-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180112190251.GC7590@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180113042354.GA24241@bombadil.infradead.org> <6d958348-bece-2c21-e8dc-4e5a65e82f9b@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6d958348-bece-2c21-e8dc-4e5a65e82f9b@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 03:47:51PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote: > On 13/01/2018 05:23, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Of course, we don't need to change them all. Try this: > > That would be good candidate for a clean up but I'm not sure this should be > part of this already too long series. > > If you don't mind, unless a global agreement is stated on that, I'd prefer > to postpone such a change once the initial series is accepted. Actually, I think this can go in first, independently of the speculative fault series. It's a win in memory savings, and probably shaves a cycle or two off the fault handler due to less argument marshalling in the call-stack.