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:   Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:56:45 +0200
From:   Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
        SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        Zack Rusin <zackr@vmware.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@gmail.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/12] s390: add pte_free_defer() for pgtables
 sharing page
Message-ID: <20230629175645.7654d0a8@thinkpad-T15>
In-Reply-To: <ZJ2hsM5Tn+yUZ5ZV@ziepe.ca>
References: <54cb04f-3762-987f-8294-91dafd8ebfb0@google.com>
        <a722dbec-bd9e-1213-1edd-53cd547aa4f@google.com>
        <20230628211624.531cdc58@thinkpad-T15>
        <cd7c2851-1440-7220-6c53-16b343b1474@google.com>
        <ZJ2hsM5Tn+yUZ5ZV@ziepe.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:22:24 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:08:08PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, Gerald Schaefer wrote:  
> > > 
> > > As discussed in the other thread, we would rather go with less complexity,
> > > possibly switching to an approach w/o the list and fragment re-use in the
> > > future. For now, as a first step in that direction, we can try with not
> > > adding fragments back only for pte_free_defer(). Here is an adjusted
> > > version of your patch, copying most of your pte_free_defer() logic and
> > > also description, tested with LTP and all three of your patch series applied:  
> > 
> > Thanks, Gerald: I don't mind abandoning my 13/12 SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU
> > patch (posted with fewer Cc's to the s390 list last week), and switching
> > to your simpler who-cares-if-we-sometimes-don't-make-maximal-use-of-page
> > patch.
> > 
> > But I didn't get deep enough into it today to confirm it - and disappointed
> > that you've found it necessary to play with pt_frag_refcount in addition to
> > _refcount and HH bits.  No real problem with that, but my instinct says it
> > should be simpler.  

Yes, I also found it a bit awkward, but it seemed "good and simple enough",
to have something to go forward with, while my instinct was in line with yours.

> 
> Is there any reason it should be any different at all from what PPC is
> doing?
> 
> I still think the right thing to do here is make the PPC code common
> (with Hugh's proposed RCU modification) and just use it in both
> arches....

With the current approach, we would not add back fragments _only_ for
the new pte_free_defer() path, while keeping our cleverness for the other
paths. Not having a good overview of the negative impact wrt potential
memory waste, I would rather take small steps, if possible.

If we later switch to never adding back fragments, of course we should
try to be in line with PPC implementation.