lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_MOVE uABI
From
On 23.10.23 14:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.10.23 17:46, Peter Xu wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 07:16:19PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> These are rather the vibes I'm getting from Peter. "Why rename it, could
>>> confuse people because the original patches are old", "Why exclude it if it
>>> has been included in the original patches". Not the kind of reasoning I can
>>> relate to when it comes to upstreaming some patches.
>>
>> You can't blame anyone if you misunderstood and biased the question.
>>
>> The first question is definitely valid, even until now. You guys still
>> prefer to rename it, which I'm totally fine with.
>>
>> The 2nd question is wrong from your interpretation. That's not my point,
>> at least not starting from a few replies already. What I was asking for is
>> why such page movement between mm is dangerous. I don't think I get solid
>> answers even until now.
>>
>> Noticing "memcg is missing" is not an argument for "cross-mm is dangerous",
>> it's a review comment. Suren can address that.
>>
>> You'll propose a new feature that may tag an mm is not an argument either,
>> if it's not merged yet. We can also address that depending on what it is,
>> also on which lands earlier.
>>
>> It'll be good to discuss these details even in a single-mm support. Anyone
>> would like to add that can already refer to discussion in this thread.
>>
>> I hope I'm clear.
>>
>
> I said everything I had to say, go read what I wrote.

Re-read your message after flying over first couple of paragraphs
previously a bit quick too quickly (can easily happen when I'm told that
I misunderstand questions and read them in a "biased" way).

I'll happy to discuss cross-mm support once we actually need it. I just
don't see the need to spend any energy on that right now, without any
users on the horizon.

[(a) I didn't blame anybody, I said that I don't understand the
reasoning. (b) I hope I made it clear that this is added complexity (and
not just currently dangerous) and so far I haven't heard a compelling
argument why we should do any of that or even spend our time discussing
that. (c) I never used "memcg is missing" as an argument for "cross-mm
is dangerous", all about added complexity without actual users. (d) "it
easily shows that there are cases where this will require extra work --
without any current benefits" -- is IMHO a perfectly fine argument
against complexity that currently nobody needs]

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-23 18:37    [W:0.133 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site