Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Message-ID: <3853229d-f68b-4960-8679-70d6f6aff9aa@linux.dev>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:57:25 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] slub: Keep track of whether slub is on the
 per-node partial list
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
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>
References: <20231021144317.3400916-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
 <20231021144317.3400916-2-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
 <ZTZn23OzQfAm6epp@casper.infradead.org>
 <ZTadrbMDcWPKMjde@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <ZTadrbMDcWPKMjde@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/10/24 00:22, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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));
>> }

Yes, it's safe to use the non-atomic version here, since it's protected
by the slub per-node list_lock and we want better performance here.

Ok, will change to directly use __set_bit() and __clear_bit() instead of
polluting the "workingset" interfaces there.

Thanks.