Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 14:39:10 +0000
From:   Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>
To:     Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Cc:     arve@android.com, brauner@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maco@android.com, surenb@google.com,
        tkjos@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 23/28] binder: document the final page calculation
Message-ID: <ZW3kjj6KC73zpnw4@google.com>
References: <20231201172212.1813387-24-cmllamas@google.com>
 <20231204115727.42370-1-aliceryhl@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231204115727.42370-1-aliceryhl@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:57:27AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > The code to determine the page range for binder_lru_freelist_del() is
> > quite obscure. It leverages the buffer_size calculated before doing an
> > oversized buffer split. This is used to figure out if the last page is
> > being shared with another active buffer. If so, the page gets trimmed
> > out of the range as it has been previously removed from the freelist.
> > 
> > This would be equivalent to getting the start page of the next in-use
> > buffer explicitly. However, the code for this is much larger as we can
> > see in binder_free_buf_locked() routine. Instead, lets settle on
> > documenting the tricky step and using better names for now.
> > 
> > I believe an ideal solution would be to count the binder_page->users to
> > determine when a page should be added or removed from the freelist.
> > However, this is a much bigger change than what I'm willing to risk at
> > this time.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>
> 
> Yes, this does help somewhat.
> 
> However, `curr_last_page` is actually not the last page. It's the last
> page plus one, since `binder_lru_freelist_del` is exclusive on this
> argument. Maybe rename it to `curr_after_last_page` or something like
> that? Or maybe even just `curr_last_page_plus_one`.

hmmm, I don't know. I think this could be more confusing, the plus-one
is only because of the way that binder_lru_freelist_del() processes the
final page. So you could interpret the name both ways. Do we _really_
need the extra comments to make it clear?

This solution is too complex anyway, it should really be replaced with a
binder_page->nr_users to determine when to add/remove from the lru.

--
Carlos Llamas