Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:31:00 -0800 (PST)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: delay page_remove_rmap() until after the TLB
 has been flushed
In-Reply-To: <Y2vM6FFQX5GlOyBs@cmpxchg.org>
Message-ID: <f38b6812-9d77-c9b8-54c5-7e123cb63265@google.com>
References: <CAHk-=wh6MxaCA4pXpt1F5Bn2__6MxCq0Dr-rES4i=MOL9ibjpg@mail.gmail.com> <20221108194139.57604-4-torvalds@linux-foundation.org> <Y2vM6FFQX5GlOyBs@cmpxchg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022, Johannes Weiner wrote:

> All 4 patches look good to me from an MM and cgroup point of view.

Yes, same here from me.

I was running my load on them (applied to 6.1-rc4) overnight, intending
to go for 20 hours.  It stopped just a few minutes short, for some fork
ENOMEM reason I've never (or not in a long time) seen before; but I don't
often run for that long, and I think if there were some new error in the
page freeing in the patches, it would have shown up very much quicker.

So I'd guess the failure was 99.9% likely unrelated, and please go ahead
with getting the patches into mm-unstable.

> 
> And with the pte still locked over rmap, we can continue with the
> removal of the cgroup-specific locking and rely on native MM
> synchronization, which is great as well.

Yes, please go ahead with that Johannes: and many thanks for coming to
the rescue with your input on the other thread.  But you'll find that
the mm/rmap.c source in mm-unstable is a bit different from 6.1-rc,
so your outlined patch will need some changes - or pass it over to
me for that if you prefer.  (And I do have one more patch to that,
hope to post later today: just rearranging the order of tests as
Linus preferred.)

Hugh