From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (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 9A1F912F581 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711552908; cv=none; b=u4rN1Qcn5U9Y10WrjwWdaBi6hqPZF9YXJPwb+7nTHeAIyRUuLYqBvfTAIK5WiifLGVFwfNyb9oBKyGQ6rv0RRqqd3d0PGg5jQurluSxbSo+5IedQulAGG1KKdkNEue0Tp/xTysn8cng1kgEONXFJc+lyCjJ5TaOtn9qccf2lZH4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711552908; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mhfoA8jCv1DDC516BG+AAL5xuYfKBZbFsPJx+Vnzofw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=B4jMwf8QeD4MV/1/I1jJLaQfm1y+7qnDoD2NMRYAPi7ih5tlL5Cc3wTHbwInZLKfOw8krP+eEL8yMeFKSxaN6K367oa5lB6ZzRAU7qdrfOxaF6iKEq3O9CXTQqVULJ103O30hRimgZMSahQxdlbFw7N1U0oNwDLL9AH6penUPHg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=a8VDp2WD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="a8VDp2WD" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1711552905; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4RJOr7EzuI0DVaYxx+XjeXTwjAi2iT7d0lhMZ/VIsjg=; b=a8VDp2WDVgyboA8qBtWpRsUNHVKyVsc8ecB42vWPaCxi7L2I6aLlzUsd12wEni6Bz/IF9e 0DXN5FhKemqb74DMpAYYLlKJHsHzh215527tymhMbeAWXwr+MxbzPf1WY3DZBqtdywpvhG TRGFzUEXQPGmKnzuovOS49QyXr5qhPA= Received: from mail-ot1-f69.google.com (mail-ot1-f69.google.com [209.85.210.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-690-3sXnZ4XKO8mdYFuIVKY8TQ-1; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:21:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 3sXnZ4XKO8mdYFuIVKY8TQ-1 Received: by mail-ot1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6dde25ac92fso3181128a34.0 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:21:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711552903; x=1712157703; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=4RJOr7EzuI0DVaYxx+XjeXTwjAi2iT7d0lhMZ/VIsjg=; b=MrGMMiCHUO5w6Ya6V1mtSdDUL1XIhhx8GIvXWdgJH6IVWmFzkD3Xqjob+zc96fI1+m Ocri+Ig4o62qgD5qajUROylKKt+8h+Jm1nmTA4aUZFYs99KvfAYKePSI1mIkk3mUDYG+ 2vH06yUEgCkOj8ppjS9GIfADYVkxrbN046jV3GQmFfPoNcVX7M9KBo5PigBP73JS1Mp1 j60D8I+uEVOmRr/L+WZCF0awghtX6+pAvM86v6QnS+Iw8m3b1nU6vKwK5DeqE1mCyGeS seQuSSkVCGw90QX8IkF1K6LnS6O2puz80ks4RD/BDYRVOdfVzlMS7I4jyHhjGMOO/AjQ XP3g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVf+d64yADWgAguDWXwHF/2lNftPCsJQjsRp2fUcfG7eM4nP/nqOqmUHN7W4t3uXSqCLI0+zQ/AGMRHL1erYMVeOjU6QZVnK2ruN0Znjo+yEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxUzNbEIj0bSjFoCKvefNiCdTQiWOcSub8dxY3GgmS+7+cJNKSW yWl2pLSUGa9TE0BdS+4RBKx/kTbhPe88bxwwezMfgUAY+/rsCyvjCj/GjAPNze0HEPvu3BAOo/V GFBi2abJsli3IDNakJJWOvV8lZs5kvokDcdh/5loNtx1J6yQHThCF+uekdZai5cuGIy8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:128a:b0:3c3:d729:1d56 with SMTP id a10-20020a056808128a00b003c3d7291d56mr316755oiw.0.1711552903443; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:21:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGxT5qAZWntttFMbBHTXwtvywmg90pV0zoL9F4zS7SQ4GsHwDy+Ru4KfcRdtRpsXZfeVg5bqg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:128a:b0:3c3:d729:1d56 with SMTP id a10-20020a056808128a00b003c3d7291d56mr316719oiw.0.1711552902921; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x1n ([99.254.121.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r15-20020a056214212f00b0069698528727sm2350243qvc.90.2024.03.27.08.21.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:21:40 -0400 From: Peter Xu To: David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Mike Rapoport , Jason Gunthorpe , John Hubbard , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] mm/gup: consistently call it GUP-fast Message-ID: References: <20240327130538.680256-1-david@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240327130538.680256-1-david@redhat.com> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 02:05:35PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Some cleanups around function names, comments and the config option of > "GUP-fast" -- GUP without "lock" safety belts on. > > With this cleanup it's easy to judge which functions are GUP-fast specific. > We now consistently call it "GUP-fast", avoiding mixing it with "fast GUP", > "lockless", or simply "gup" (which I always considered confusing in the > ode). > > So the magic now happens in functions that contain "gup_fast", whereby > gup_fast() is the entry point into that magic. Comments consistently > reference either "GUP-fast" or "gup_fast()". > > Based on mm-unstable from today. I won't CC arch maintainers, but only > arch mailing lists, to reduce noise. > > Tested on x86_64, cross compiled on a bunch of archs, whereby some of them > don't properly even compile on mm-unstable anymore in my usual setup > (alpha, arc, parisc64, sh) ... maybe the cross compilers are outdated, > but there are no new ones around. Hm. I'm not sure what config you tried there; as I am doing some build tests recently, I found turning off CONFIG_SAMPLES + CONFIG_GCC_PLUGINS could avoid a lot of issues, I think it's due to libc missing. But maybe not the case there. The series makes sense to me, the naming is confusing. Btw, thanks for posting this as RFC. This definitely has a conflict with the other gup series that I had; I'll post v4 of that shortly. -- Peter Xu