Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] mm: better document PG_reserved

2018-12-06 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 05.12.18 19:13, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 05.12.18 18:32, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:05:12PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 05.12.18 15:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:28:51PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > I don't see a reaso

Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] mm: better document PG_reserved

2018-12-05 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 05.12.18 18:32, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:05:12PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 05.12.18 15:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:28:51PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: I don't see a reason why we have to document "Some of them might not

Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] mm: better document PG_reserved

2018-12-05 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:05:12PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 05.12.18 15:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:28:51PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> I don't see a reason why we have to document "Some of them might not even > >> exist". If there is a user, we sho

Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] mm: better document PG_reserved

2018-12-05 Thread David Hildenbrand
On 05.12.18 15:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:28:51PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> I don't see a reason why we have to document "Some of them might not even >> exist". If there is a user, we should document it. E.g. for balloon >> drivers we now use PG_offline to indic

Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] mm: better document PG_reserved

2018-12-05 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:28:51PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > I don't see a reason why we have to document "Some of them might not even > exist". If there is a user, we should document it. E.g. for balloon > drivers we now use PG_offline to indicate that a page might currently > not be backe

Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] mm: better document PG_reserved

2018-12-05 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 05-12-18 13:28:51, David Hildenbrand wrote: > The usage of PG_reserved and how PG_reserved pages are to be treated is > burried deep down in different parts of the kernel. Let's shine some light > onto these details by documenting (most?) current users and expected > behavior. > > I don't s

[PATCH RFC 7/7] mm: better document PG_reserved

2018-12-05 Thread David Hildenbrand
The usage of PG_reserved and how PG_reserved pages are to be treated is burried deep down in different parts of the kernel. Let's shine some light onto these details by documenting (most?) current users and expected behavior. I don't see a reason why we have to document "Some of them might not eve