Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/damon: defensively skip zone device folios in damon_get_folio()
Gregory Price <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.damon,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <an0rQM7ZwWnB0nVD@fedora> |
On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 05:09:37PM -0700, SJ Park wrote: > On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 12:05:00 -0500 Gregory Price <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 02:37:59PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 03:47:11PM -0400, Gregory Price wrote: > > > > All DAMON physical- and virtual-address operations obtain their folios > > > > through damon_get_folio(). That helper already excludes ZONE_DEVICE > > > > memory implicitly via pfn_to_online_page() and folio_test_lru(), but > > > > this is inconsistent with other callers in mm/ which test explicitly. > > > > > > > > Add an explicit folio_is_zone_device() rejection in damon_get_folio() > > > > so the guarantee lives in one place and covers every caller uniformly, > > > > consistent with other mm walkers that reject zone device folios. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gregory Price (Meta) <[email protected]> > > > > > > Thanks, nice to make it explicit! > > > > > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <[email protected]> > > > > > > > SJ Asked me to drop it, > > I didn't asked you to drop this. I asked your thought about revisioning this > for my concern. And you replied [1] you can drop this. > Sorry I didn't mean to imply you pushed for one side or another, just that the feedback you gave about not wanting dead code is reason enough to drop it. I will probably just go ahead and drop it unless Lorenzo thinks the patch is worth keeping. In my next private node iteration, it ends up back in anyway - so we get a two for one without the intermediate patch. ~Gregory