From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ilvokhin.com (mail.ilvokhin.com [178.62.254.231]) (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 5BEF31C84A6 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:48:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774889291; cv=none; b=gB/mBodtxWLdiGKdRPXPoIWUllfBGSyBMuJn8mX3ro6vnTZOZsacgTQ0cocRmlp/RTJaKdCLbSo5aME1hEwA/mPFhl2Lmlpvx8iQI6z4P33svTKl0P2h30uc2XOz63Zpqyn22uBek8rYRxrqUXZEAxLckXlViKItQ+Uiw8fZBuY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774889291; c=relaxed/simple; bh=akhROpVg6KL6IUCtGx8ll+ki9rhWA8T3OninLgm3dCs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=JCcP0E6MAZ/vOZohc/6S3PU7sEoXCMbs4ZBGk4YCyKNrE+ggK/hnxvwNOCaPUOlYez0T7CndKMUyI36bMJTcMaEnkEgf5OLB/3MWDbxQ+zDfG3rNtg1DI2jlvb8nr1Ei8I2sPOL8fci4eUSuFm7EGlCu/Wy6aMRTC9XsN6UiqAU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b=Wu5xKP7P; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b="Wu5xKP7P" Received: from shell.ilvokhin.com (shell.ilvokhin.com [138.68.190.75]) (Authenticated sender: d@ilvokhin.com) by mail.ilvokhin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8DBDBE15B; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:48:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ilvokhin.com; s=mail; t=1774889282; bh=Shj7QzE/Spveh95U3mOIo4vm0AXuwZdRq3vvb/nlFnk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Wu5xKP7PIPetVSo2TNT7CaBKtCPwUGtgrZUfb71Zw0ILyCfbkU+3XCAZpaDOEe2pj 2oH7w/B+ZEil+cY8j6oBJdiq7wM7gRFKg9RPSWNGLZK6kI67xUnb70fcQLxDCEsGKa o/+GKQ7EtrvZ5TTnfFX1a0NCuM+QtWFHdGVKkr9g= Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:47:58 +0000 From: Dmitry Ilvokhin To: Andrew Morton Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Brendan Jackman , Johannes Weiner , Zi Yan , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] mm: use spinlock guards for zone lock Message-ID: References: <20260327131120.591770a2aa63abbaa7bbeadc@linux-foundation.org> 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: <20260327131120.591770a2aa63abbaa7bbeadc@linux-foundation.org> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 01:11:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 16:14:40 +0000 Dmitry Ilvokhin wrote: > > > This series uses spinlock guard for zone lock across several mm > > functions to replace explicit lock/unlock patterns with automatic > > scope-based cleanup. > > > > This simplifies the control flow by removing 'flags' variables, goto > > labels, and redundant unlock calls. > > > > Patches are ordered by decreasing value. The first six patches simplify > > the control flow by removing gotos, multiple unlock paths, or 'ret' > > variables. The last two are simpler lock/unlock pair conversions that > > only remove 'flags' and can be dropped if considered unnecessary churn. > > Thanks, you've been busy. > > I'm not wanting to move new, non-fix, non-speedup things into mm.git > until after -rc1 so there's your target. But now is a good time to be > sending out material for people to look at. Let's not have a gigantic > flood of new stuff the day after -rc1! > > I think progress here is totally dependent on whether those who > regularly work on this code want guard() in there. A > preference/familiarity/style choice, mainly. At present the adoption > of guard() in mm/*.c is very small. > Thanks for taking a look, Andrew. I'm not aiming for any particular merge window here. I had some time to revisit the previous version and rework it, so I sent this now mainly to keep the discussion going. I agree this probably comes down to whether people are comfortable with using guard() in this code. It'd be great to hear what others working in mm, and in page_alloc in particular, think.