Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-86673-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:07:35 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: "Huang, Rulin" <rulin.huang@intel.com>
Cc: urezki@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, colin.king@intel.com,
	hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	lstoakes@gmail.com, tianyou.li@intel.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com,
	wangyang.guo@intel.com, zhiguo.zhou@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mm/vmalloc: lock contention optimization under
 multi-threading
Message-ID: <ZeBzh/rVXwj0Yr8w@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20240229082611.4104839-1-rulin.huang@intel.com>
 <aa8f0413-d055-4b49-bcd3-401e93e01c6d@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aa8f0413-d055-4b49-bcd3-401e93e01c6d@intel.com>

On 02/29/24 at 04:31pm, Huang, Rulin wrote:
> Apologizes for the confusions the original format led to and thanks so
> much for your guidance which will surely enhance the efficiency when
> communicating with the kernel community.
> 
> We've submitted the v6 of the patch, which more rigorously checks
> va_flag with BUG_ON, and at the same time ensures the additional
> performance overhead is subtle. In this modification we also moved the
> position of the macros because the definition of VMAP_RAM should be
> placed before alloc_vmap_area().
> 
> Much appreciation from you and Uladzislau on the code refinement. And at
> the same time, we'd also respect the internal review comments and
> suggestions from Tim and Colin, without which this patch cannot be
> qualified to be sent out for your review. Although the current
> implementation has been much different from its first version, I'd still
> recommend properly recognizing their contributions with the "review-by"
> tag. Does it make sense?

Just checked Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, seems below
tags are more appropriate? Because the work you mentioned is your
internal cooperation and effort, may not be related to upstream patch
reviewing.

Co-developed-by: "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Co-developed-by: "King, Colin" <colin.king@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: "King, Colin" <colin.king@intel.com>