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;
Date:   Mon, 1 Mar 2021 12:16:19 -0800 (PST)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com,
        vbabka@suse.cz, guro@fb.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, hughd@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        mhocko@kernel.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: use PF_ONLY_HEAD for PG_active and
 PG_unevictable
In-Reply-To: <YD1HgmERg3/LuApe@google.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2103011215260.4616@eggly.anvils>
References: <20210224084807.2179942-1-yuzhao@google.com> <20210226091718.2927291-1-yuzhao@google.com> <20210226091718.2927291-4-yuzhao@google.com> <20210226121314.GB2723601@casper.infradead.org> <20210301115007.mgw5vthgjoibnjf4@box>
 <YD1HgmERg3/LuApe@google.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 1 Mar 2021, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 02:50:07PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:13:14PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:17:18AM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > > All places but one test, set or clear PG_active and PG_unevictable on
> > > > small or head pages. Use compound_head() explicitly for that singleton
> > > > so the rest can rid of redundant compound_head().
> > > 
> > > How do you know it's only one place?  I really wish you'd work with me
> > > on folios.  They make the compiler prove that it's not a tail page.
> > 
> > +1 to this.
> > 
> > The problem with compound_head() is systemic and ad-hoc solution to few
> > page flags will only complicate the picture.
> 
> Well, I call it an incremental improvement, and how exactly does it
> complicate the picture?
> 
> I see your point: you prefer a complete replacement. But my point is
> not about the preference; it's about presenting an option: I'm not
> saying we have to go with this series; I'm saying if you don't want
> to wait, here is something quick but not perfect.

+1 to this.

Hugh