From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72DE040927A; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783526114; cv=none; b=p4DGR8le2fNJ8vue9jt9iq/wqvdSr7B31H7eDAPUdoiSpZK5TZCitZHsC7uE7m1Blik97ms3Pa0A4JQPhKV4ecBAeXpqetjgvE2TmdeoheBDW/tn78Ykrvygzt+e3zDkthFFaKYDcuCKg3Yt85jrZTR3ZNcXcPGQL9YOkCm3MPg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783526114; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oYUkap13H/ljKeh7prqaskPz/1kSTD389KTXQSfGjxY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=UdBHRNwsiIx4h13YWhB8KMoKEUbyoKUMfUVrsFrHOYKpasuzp+3FRwc0Znh4DbaxwZgbyAT8GiwCNC6mgzGLGaX+6ujrqCJRyHTB8+MtIsy298QiyQ9SCTK9C9a3yhqnZ+xOJGlKp0FY5qXbJ97hZi8XX8EHSSot+GioDLgUZ1Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=qiOgDbiE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="qiOgDbiE" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=9uzo/+ZMsI9AE8BH3oP33g11nkLTRuU3D045+coURXo=; b=qiOgDbiEUagj3suhyQZJYFHimT fiJaBOWAPs9dYl6uMoND4iBrSHrp0KWBmTSiRfdSyOxwP1fLmvA8Qf5XBDYRR/TkGjJGr/dsDVXKm 9hZwaO/KTJ1YvFbVcOx38ewL1fDNHch4sDD4gjDH43QI6JwC8G6hrZno2vMhpOLJeQRCA2t0ZmZPo Y5dtBvm0sMKBWmzeENzFoorJ2VCSmaw3g6gpg9A4qis41U8BRhNdgC+g4vHmS1Hd5dGN+OasvmIYw NLIOVsLLD0Qwwk6aBW/yehkoJJuurHSvH0GA04DYegBOYiKi6jsB7AAxIlKAntJAzKLnXfrFjSRWC PV4KBAnw==; Received: from authenticated-user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1whUc2-0033ej-04; Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:55:02 +0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 08:54:57 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Mateusz Guzik Cc: Alexander Viro , Christian Brauner , oleg@redhat.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, Jan Kara , jlayton@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] fs/pipe: unify the page pools into a single per-pipe pool Message-ID: References: <20260707-b4-pipe-unification-v2-0-eb52bddeeefd@debian.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Debian-User: leitao On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 05:24:47PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 5:11 PM Breno Leitao wrote: > > That said, your approach is better than what I had, and I would like to > > integrate it to this patch set. Os it OK if I give a Co-developed-with: > > tag? > > imo this is too trivial compared to the entirety of the patchset to > warrant attribution. Just take it. > > To be clear, I just now verified avoidance of the extra trip resolved > the regression for me so I have no objections to the patchset. > > For completeness I note I failed to remove the lock acquire in > anon_pipe_trim_pool_and_unlock, but I presume you noticed (at worst > while testing). yes, otherwise it was self deadlocking it self in AA scenario. > One suggestion I have is to post the entire thing as one patch as I > don't think the split here buys anything, but I'm not going to insist > one way or the other. Ack, I splitted the changes hoping it would make the review easier. So, I will respin this with your suggestion in a single patch, after some bake time (probably tomorrow).