From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-f197.google.com (mail-qt1-f197.google.com [209.85.160.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A138E0085 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:34:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt1-f197.google.com with SMTP id t18so7044329qtj.3 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 07:34:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com. [209.132.183.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m41si19800708qvh.168.2019.01.24.07.34.37 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Jan 2019 07:34:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:34:32 -0500 From: Jerome Glisse Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 04/24] mm: gup: allow VM_FAULT_RETRY for multiple times Message-ID: <20190124153431.GB5030@redhat.com> References: <20190121075722.7945-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20190121075722.7945-5-peterx@redhat.com> <20190121162455.GC3711@redhat.com> <20190124070503.GJ18231@xz-x1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20190124070503.GJ18231@xz-x1> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Xu Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins , Maya Gokhale , Johannes Weiner , Martin Cracauer , Denis Plotnikov , Shaohua Li , Andrea Arcangeli , Mike Kravetz , Marty McFadden , Mike Rapoport , Mel Gorman , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:05:03PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:24:55AM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:57:02PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > > This is the gup counterpart of the change that allows the VM_FAULT_RETRY > > > to happen for more than once. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu > > > > So it would be nice to add a comment in the code and in the commit message > > about possible fault starvation (mostly due to previous patch changes) as > > if some one experience that and try to bisect it might overlook the commit. > > > > Otherwise: > > > > Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse > > Jerome, can I still keep this r-b if I'm going to fix the starvation > issue you mentioned in previous patch about lock page? > No please, i still want to review properly the oneline ie making sure that it will not change any of the existing use of FAULT_FLAG_TRIED I am finishing a bunch of patches myself so i am bit short on time right now to take a deeper look but i will try to do that in next few days :) In anycase i will review again your next posting. Cheers, Jérôme