Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 01/26] mm: introduce CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
        jack@suse.cz, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, hpa@zytor.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        kemi.wang@intel.com, Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@gmail.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@gmail.com>,
        vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org
References: <1526555193-7242-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1526555193-7242-2-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <2cb8256d-5822-d94d-b0e6-c46f21d84852@infradead.org>
 <20180517171951.GB26718@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <b5df0b34-5c7b-6d8c-d29d-bc6fb4e51023@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 May 2018 10:34:53 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180517171951.GB26718@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/17/2018 10:19 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 09:36:00AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> +	 If the speculative page fault fails because of a concurrency is
>>
>> 	                                     because a concurrency is
> 
> While one can use concurrency as a noun, it sounds archaic to me.  I'd
> rather:
> 
> 	If the speculative page fault fails because a concurrent modification
> 	is detected or because underlying PMD or PTE tables are not yet

Yeah, OK.

>>> +	 detected or because underlying PMD or PTE tables are not yet
>>> +	 allocating, it is failing its processing and a classic page fault
>>
>> 	 allocated, the speculative page fault fails and a classic page fault
>>
>>> +	 is then tried.


-- 
~Randy