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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.112.34 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.112.34; helo=mail.nvidia.com;
From:   Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        "Andrea Arcangeli" <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@oracle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mm: Add ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP and zap_flags
Date:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:21:30 +1000
Message-ID: <2497776.C4p5gPNQJS@nvdebian>
In-Reply-To: <YUFgAPJJxy8L4GMP@xz-m1.local>
References: <20210908163516.214441-1-peterx@redhat.com> <2576475.WBpAVSM2eX@nvdebian> <YUFgAPJJxy8L4GMP@xz-m1.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2021 03:21:35.6656
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6ab708de-cdf1-47e0-ab0c-08d977f7ec7a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.112.34];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT039.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR1201MB0240
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 12:52:48 PM AEST Peter Xu wrote:

> > > The flag introduced in this patch will be a preparation for more bits defined
> > > in the future, e.g., for a new bit in flag to show whether to persist the
> > > upcoming uffd-wp bit in pgtable entries.
> > 
> > That's kind of the problem. The patch itself looks correct to me however as
> > mentioned it is mostly reverting a previous cleanup and it's hard to tell why
> > that's justified without the subsequent patches. Perhaps it makes the usage of
> > zap_details a bit clearer, but a comment also would with less code.
> > 
> > I know you want to try and shrink the uffd-wp series but I think this patch
> > might be easier to review if it was included as part of that series.
> 
> I posted it because I think it's suitable to have it even without uffd-wp.
> 
> I tried to explain it above on two things this patch wanted to fix:
> 
> Firstly the comment is wrong; we've moved back and forth on changing the
> zap_details flags but the comment is not changing along the way and it's not
> matching the code right now.
> 
> Secondly I do think we should have a flag showing explicit willingness to skip
> swap entries.  Yes, uffd-wp is the planned new one, but my point is anyone who
> will introduce a new user of zap_details pointer could overlook this fact.  The
> new flag helps us to make sure someone will at least read the flags and know
> what'll happen with it.
> 
> For the 2nd reasoning, I also explicitly CCed Kirill too, so Kirill can provide
> any comment if he disagrees.  For now, I still think we should keep having such
> a flag otherwise it could be error-prone.
> 
> Could you buy-in above reasoning?

Kind of, I do think it makes the usage of details a bit clearer or at least
harder to miss. It is just that if that was the sole aim of this patch I think
there might be simpler (less code) ways of doing so.

> Basically above is what I wanted to express in my commit message.  I hope that
> can justify that this patch (even if extremly simple) can still be considered
> as acceptable upstream even without uffd-wp series.
> 
> If you still insist on this patch not suitable for standalone merging and
> especially if some other reviewer would think the same, I can move it back to
> uffd-wp series for sure.  Then I'll repost this series with 4 patches only.

I won't insist, the code looks correct and it doesn't make things any less
clear so you can put my Reviewed-by on it and perhaps leave it to Andrew or
another reviewer to determine if this should be taken in this series or as part
of a future uffd-wp series.

 - Alistair

> In all cases, thanks for looking at the series.
> 
>