Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201209184049.GA8778@willie-the-truck> <CAHk-=wgVqGh402dxfhR=bx2QSH=+4kq9doarNmD77baqDKdiUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201210150828.4b7pg5lx666r7l2u@black.fi.intel.com> <CAHk-=wiU8ktvak2hCj2TWJ6wMSwVsUSvi5Bjf4i1JGvpGmyUZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201214160724.ewhjqoi32chheone@box> <CAHk-=wi80Qp6nZC0yyewhnqvrmPx2h_yWvfq4A25ONb7z9BywQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201216170703.o5lpsnjfmoj7f3ml@box> <CAHk-=wiVRMADHC0qjTFAVx2Pp0DN-fT-VPC10boDdX0O4=h01w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201217105409.2gacwgg7rco2ft3m@box> <CAHk-=wiyPTnQ9E1dT9LJtNxeVmLaykursk_MSecUqFjSb3gwAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201218110400.yve45r3zsv7qgfa3@box>
In-Reply-To: <20201218110400.yve45r3zsv7qgfa3@box>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:56:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgO2LsoKhX7MjSECo+Xrj1-Me7tzRfNcsdEZBRwJW1cQg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Allow architectures to request 'old' entries when prefaulting
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 3:04 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
>
> This should do. See below.

Looks fine.

> > Then that second loop very naturally becomes a "do { } while ()" one.
>
> I don't see it. I haven't found a reasonable way to rework it do-while.

Now that you return early for the "HEAD == NULL" case, this loop:

        for (; head; head = xas_next_entry(&xas, end_pgoff)) {
                [...]
        }

very naturally becomes

        do {
                [...]
        } while ((head = xas_next_entry(&xas, end_pgoff)) != NULL);

because the initial test for 'head' being NULL is no longer needed,
and thus it's a lot more logical to just test it at the end of the
loop when we update it.

No?

Maybe I'm missing something silly.

           Linus