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:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:57:09 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm/hmm: use reference counting for HMM struct v2
Message-ID: <20190328165708.GH31324@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
References: <20190325144011.10560-1-jglisse@redhat.com>
 <20190325144011.10560-3-jglisse@redhat.com>
 <20190328110719.GA31324@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190328191122.GA5740@redhat.com>
 <c8fd897f-b9d3-a77b-9898-78e20221ba44@nvidia.com>
 <20190328212145.GA13560@redhat.com>
 <fcb7be01-38c1-ed1f-70a0-d03dc9260473@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <fcb7be01-38c1-ed1f-70a0-d03dc9260473@nvidia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 05:39:26PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/28/19 2:21 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:43:13PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> >> On 3/28/19 12:11 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 04:07:20AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:40:02AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>>>> From: J?r?me Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> [...]
> >>>>> @@ -67,14 +78,9 @@ struct hmm {
> >>>>>   */
> >>>>>  static struct hmm *hmm_register(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >>>>>  {
> >>>>> -	struct hmm *hmm = READ_ONCE(mm->hmm);
> >>>>> +	struct hmm *hmm = mm_get_hmm(mm);
> >>>>
> >>>> FWIW: having hmm_register == "hmm get" is a bit confusing...
> >>>
> >>> The thing is that you want only one hmm struct per process and thus
> >>> if there is already one and it is not being destroy then you want to
> >>> reuse it.
> >>>
> >>> Also this is all internal to HMM code and so it should not confuse
> >>> anyone.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, it has repeatedly come up, and I'd claim that it is quite 
> >> counter-intuitive. So if there is an easy way to make this internal 
> >> HMM code clearer or better named, I would really love that to happen.
> >>
> >> And we shouldn't ever dismiss feedback based on "this is just internal
> >> xxx subsystem code, no need for it to be as clear as other parts of the
> >> kernel", right?
> > 
> > Yes but i have not seen any better alternative that present code. If
> > there is please submit patch.
> > 
> 
> Ira, do you have any patch you're working on, or a more detailed suggestion there?
> If not, then I might (later, as it's not urgent) propose a small cleanup patch 
> I had in mind for the hmm_register code. But I don't want to duplicate effort 
> if you're already thinking about it.

No I don't have anything.

I was just really digging into these this time around and I was about to
comment on the lack of "get's" for some "puts" when I realized that
"hmm_register" _was_ the get...

:-(

Ira

> 
> 
> thanks,
> -- 
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA
> 
>