From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752505AbeDKBSr (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:18:47 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:7737 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752245AbeDKBSp (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:18:45 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,434,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="32725588" Message-ID: <5ACD6339.6040806@intel.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:22:01 +0800 From: Wei Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Andrew Morton CC: virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, liliang.opensource@gmail.com, yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com, quan.xu0@gmail.com, nilal@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, huangzhichao@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v29 1/4] mm: support reporting free page blocks References: <1522031994-7246-1-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com> <1522031994-7246-2-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com> <20180326142254.c4129c3a54ade686ee2a5e21@linux-foundation.org> <20180410211719-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20180410135429.d1aeeb91d7f2754ffe7fb80e@linux-foundation.org> <20180411022440-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20180411022440-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/11/2018 07:25 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 01:54:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:19:31 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: >> >>> Andrew, were your questions answered? If yes could I bother you for an ack on this? >>> >> Still not very happy that readers are told that "this function may >> sleep" when it clearly doesn't do so. If we wish to be able to change >> it to sleep in the future then that should be mentioned. And even put a >> might_sleep() in there, to catch people who didn't read the comments... >> >> Otherwise it looks OK. > Oh, might_sleep with a comment explaining it's for the future sounds > good to me. I queued this - Wei, could you post a patch on top pls? > I'm just thinking if it would be necessary to add another might_sleep, because we've had a cond_resched there which has wrapped a __might_sleep. Best, Wei