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:   Mon, 22 May 2023 23:08:38 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] mm: vmalloc: Add a per-CPU-zone infrastructure
Message-ID: <ZGxYZlLoADBWktT8@infradead.org>
References: <20230522110849.2921-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20230522110849.2921-5-urezki@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230522110849.2921-5-urezki@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 01:08:44PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> +#define fbl(z, i, m) z->fbl[i].m
> +#define fbl_root(z, i) fbl(z, i, root)
> +#define fbl_head(z, i) fbl(z, i, head)
> +
> +#define fbl_lock(z, i) spin_lock(&fbl(z, i, lock))
> +#define fbl_unlock(z, i) spin_unlock(&fbl(z, i, lock))

Even if it is just temporary, I don't think adding these wrappers
make much sense.

> +struct cpu_vmap_zone {
> +	/*
> +	 * FREE, BUSY, LAZY bookkeeping data of this CPU zone.
> +	 */
> +	struct {
> +		struct rb_root root;
> +		struct list_head head;
> +		spinlock_t lock;
> +	} fbl[NFBL];

Maybe replace NFBL with something longer and more descriptive?

But also in general it feels like this should be folded into a patch
doing real work.  As-is it doesn't look very useful.