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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Message-ID: <7d72778e-7305-18e9-edf4-ed55a98aa7e2@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 14:39:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: clarify folio_set_compound_order() zero
 support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        <tsahu@linux.ibm.com>, <david@redhat.com>
References: <20221207223731.32784-1-sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com>
 <92965844-c430-8b8e-d9f1-705d7578bceb@nvidia.com>
 <ec8f46ca-9ea6-4567-2038-22f6d3000ed5@oracle.com>
 <d17530ad-8e12-8069-d619-a2d72fe80e15@nvidia.com>
 <0187f9c2-e80a-9cde-68bc-c9bdbd96b6fe@oracle.com>
 <Y5I78soNmAFv7pi8@casper.infradead.org> <Y5JCi3h8bUzLf3cu@monkey>
 <2723541a-79aa-c6b5-d82c-53db76b78145@oracle.com>
 <e86ca90f-e59e-3851-7225-b5f596ad04b9@nvidia.com>
 <36ddac45-ecd0-e2d2-e974-8c85ca503053@oracle.com>
 <20cc2088-b66e-28d1-a529-414e82146336@nvidia.com>
 <434a111c-7f1a-0018-6bd2-561cb382deea@oracle.com>
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <434a111c-7f1a-0018-6bd2-561cb382deea@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2022 22:39:58.3030
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5519375c-fda6-4ee9-c95d-08dad96d22c8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT066.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR12MB4862
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,
        SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 12/8/22 14:33, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
> On 12/8/22 2:14 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 12/8/22 14:12, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
>>> On 12/8/22 2:01 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/22 13:58, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
>>>>> Thanks John, Mike, Matthew, and Muchun for the feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> To summarize this discussion and outline the next version of this patch, the changes I'll make include:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) change the name of folio_set_compound_order() to folio_set_order()
>>>>> 2) change the placement of this function from mm.h to mm/internal.h
>>>>> 3) folio_set_order() will set both _folio_order and _folio_nr_pages and handle the zero order case correctly.
>>>>> 4) remove the comment about hugetlb's specific use for zero orders
>>>>> 5) improve the style of folio_set_order() by removing ifdefs from inside the function to doing
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>>>>>   static inline void folio_set_order(struct folio *folio,
>>>>>                   unsigned int order)
>>>>>   {
>>>>>       VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio), folio);
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good, except for this part: why is a function named
>>>> folio_set_order() BUG-ing on a non-large folio? The naming
>>>> is still wrong, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is because the _folio_nr_pages and _folio_order fields are part of the first tail page in the folio. folio_test_large returns if the folio is larger than one page which would be required for setting the fields.
>>
>> OK, but then as I said, the name is wrong. One can either:
>>
>> a) handle the non-large case, or
>>
>> b) rename the function to indicate that it only works on large folios.
>>
> 
> Discussed here[1], the BUG_ON line seemed more appropriate over
> 
> if (!folio_test_large(folio))
>      return;
> 
> as the misuse would not be silent. I think I would be against renaming the function as I don't see any large folio specific function names for other accessors of tail page fields. Would both the BUG_ON and return on non-large folio be included then?

Actually, if you want the "misuse to not be silent", today's guidelines
would point more toward WARN and return, instead of BUG, btw.

I don't think that a survey of existing names is really the final word on what
to name this. Names should be accurate, even if other names are less so. How
about something like:

     large_folio_set_order()

?

> 
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20221129225039.82257-1-sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com/T/#m98cf80bb21ae533b7385f2e363c602e2c9e2802d
>>
>> thanks,
> 
> 

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA