From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f71.google.com (mail-lf0-f71.google.com [209.85.215.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836EE6B0009 for ; Tue, 1 May 2018 20:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f71.google.com with SMTP id f133-v6so4098841lfg.18 for ; Tue, 01 May 2018 17:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id s29-v6sor2030330lfk.33.2018.05.01.17.05.16 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 01 May 2018 17:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: tweaks for improving use of vmap_area References: <20180426234243.22267-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20180430161515.118e6538e4d4f1cc4ae425cc@linux-foundation.org> From: Igor Stoppa Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 04:05:14 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180430161515.118e6538e4d4f1cc4ae425cc@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: willy@infradead.org, mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, igor.stoppa@huawei.com On 01/05/18 03:15, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 03:42:41 +0400 Igor Stoppa wrote: > >> These two patches were written in preparation for the creation of >> protectable memory, however their use is not limited to pmalloc and can >> improve the use of virtually contiguous memory. >> >> The first provides a faster path from struct page to the vm_struct that >> tracks it. >> >> The second patch renames a single linked list field inside of vmap_area. >> The list is currently used only for disposing of the data structure, once >> it is not in use anymore. >> Which means that it cold be used for other purposes while it's not queued >> for destruction. > > The patches look benign to me (feel free to add my ack), thank you > but I'm not seeing a reason to apply them at this time? I thought they might come useful to others playing with vmap_areas, I'll resubmit them anyway with the protected memory set. But I was also hoping to get some more review, especially for the second, which had not received any definitive ACK/NACK, till now. So, I'm also ok if they can be merged once the others are ACK'ed. -- igor