Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:22:05 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     chengming.zhou@linux.dev
Cc:     cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
        roman.gushchin@linux.dev, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, pcc@google.com,
        tytso@mit.edu, maz@kernel.org, ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com,
        vishal.moola@gmail.com, lrh2000@pku.edu.cn, hughd@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] slub: Keep track of whether slub is on the
 per-node partial list
Message-ID: <ZTadrbMDcWPKMjde@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20231021144317.3400916-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
 <20231021144317.3400916-2-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
 <ZTZn23OzQfAm6epp@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZTZn23OzQfAm6epp@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 01:32:27PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> _Assuming_ that it's safe to use the non-atomic flag setting, I'd
> rather see this done as ...
> 
> static inline void slab_set_node_partial(struct slab *slab)
> {
> 	__folio_set_workingset(slab_folio(slab));

Ugh, I meant to delete this line.  I meant to just write the next line.

> 	__set_bit(PG_workingset, folio_flags(slab_folio(slab), 0));
> }