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;
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 11:55:54 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] THP eligibility reporting via proc
Message-ID: <20181207105554.GX1286@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20181120103515.25280-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181120103515.25280-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 20-11-18 11:35:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> this series of three patches aims at making THP eligibility reporting
> much more robust and long term sustainable. The trigger for the change
> is a regression report [1] and the long follow up discussion. In short
> the specific application didn't have good API to query whether a particular
> mapping can be backed by THP so it has used VMA flags to workaround that.
> These flags represent a deep internal state of VMAs and as such they should
> be used by userspace with a great deal of caution.
> 
> A similar has happened for [2] when users complained that VM_MIXEDMAP is
> no longer set on DAX mappings. Again a lack of a proper API led to an
> abuse.
> 
> The first patch in the series tries to emphasise that that the semantic
> of flags might change and any application consuming those should be really
> careful.
> 
> The remaining two patches provide a more suitable interface to address [1]
> and provide a consistent API to query the THP status both for each VMA
> and process wide as well.

Are there any other comments on these? I haven't heard any pushback so
far so I will re-send with RFC dropped early next week.

> 
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.21.1809241054050.224429@chino.kir.corp.google.com
> [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181002100531.GC4135@quack2.suse.cz
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs