From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 CE0517CF11 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:07:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709208467; cv=none; b=lo4R2JgwTEeeZqOkFS2pfZs/adnX0X1g/w9sRlf0Q3VJsWchdkDy3wy9tYip5J8FlalFiWLkFPcrlYyFj5zeSW8ZztJ2dFDIbOFEnJLPmRzren/ht8bQiRfMimhVOHL4BWRc2n5KSFdJh4YPvbu9kia3LceEVGGc0tHsEImF80M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709208467; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HyuVlckc5Kl8c8OInENlmlezaCytk+CSvl2MIBYylYc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dF2anlzgWswXmNDGZ+05sExFJM7dyEaglJUZnnKR3eiZeXnqUKp47EjMXEpvqqKD3dNoy/Xumkqmqr8HIFw/21aFAiW4lJWA17jt2MQclotmfiRX0YlmY+SrRGwNvZwFYMPgn69nNqDGFkHX2qPrTllUcF5qB0CAsaVkPvqwTXo= 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=SQyiAbXv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 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="SQyiAbXv" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1709208464; 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=H+Xze/yxxajNWL1KhoG/Ul/vP6wDJGvmG9gREiC46JA=; b=SQyiAbXvva0MFOzZsGdFZ1+uPhZnynlnuY9YzU5NwJ/AF0fMTAAGXzxokm++voT1vzpTy2 0r/Usc6A3+icabz9ifBSLRRev/K70pv/8lHKn9lhG1i54wp2xx6SPhFHUADbLs/2s0696l C9LrRG+Z0xlJk8HEhS8Jk6PbmvGDQhc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-641-N4lH7H4rMUC6jgPKjgmmBA-1; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 07:07:40 -0500 X-MC-Unique: N4lH7H4rMUC6jgPKjgmmBA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 155863C100B0; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:07:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.72.116.6]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4B63492BE2; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:07:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:07:35 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: "Huang, Rulin" Cc: urezki@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, colin.king@intel.com, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, lstoakes@gmail.com, tianyou.li@intel.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com, wangyang.guo@intel.com, zhiguo.zhou@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mm/vmalloc: lock contention optimization under multi-threading Message-ID: References: <20240229082611.4104839-1-rulin.huang@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.10 On 02/29/24 at 04:31pm, Huang, Rulin wrote: > Apologizes for the confusions the original format led to and thanks so > much for your guidance which will surely enhance the efficiency when > communicating with the kernel community. > > We've submitted the v6 of the patch, which more rigorously checks > va_flag with BUG_ON, and at the same time ensures the additional > performance overhead is subtle. In this modification we also moved the > position of the macros because the definition of VMAP_RAM should be > placed before alloc_vmap_area(). > > Much appreciation from you and Uladzislau on the code refinement. And at > the same time, we'd also respect the internal review comments and > suggestions from Tim and Colin, without which this patch cannot be > qualified to be sent out for your review. Although the current > implementation has been much different from its first version, I'd still > recommend properly recognizing their contributions with the "review-by" > tag. Does it make sense? Just checked Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, seems below tags are more appropriate? Because the work you mentioned is your internal cooperation and effort, may not be related to upstream patch reviewing. Co-developed-by: "Chen, Tim C" Signed-off-by: "Chen, Tim C" Co-developed-by: "King, Colin" Signed-off-by: "King, Colin"