Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm,hugetlb: use folio fields in second tail page

[Sidhartha Kumar]

On 11/3/22 9:29 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
> > On 11/2/22 6:48 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> ...
> > > Undo "mm: add private field of first tail to struct page and struct
> > > folio"'s recent addition of private_1 to the folio tail: instead add
> > > hugetlb_subpool, hugetlb_cgroup, hugetlb_cgroup_rsvd, hugetlb_hwpoison
> > > to a second tail page of the folio: THP has long been using several
> > > fields of that tail, so make better use of it for hugetlb too.
> > > This is not how a generic folio should be declared in future,
> > > but it is an effective transitional way to make use of it.
> ...
> > > @@ -260,13 +267,16 @@ struct page {
> > >     *    to find how many references there are to this folio.
> > >     * @memcg_data: Memory Control Group data.
> > >     * @_flags_1: For large folios, additional page flags.
> > > - * @__head: Points to the folio.  Do not use.
> > > + * @_head_1: Points to the folio.  Do not use.
> > Changes to my original patch set look good, this seems to be a cleaner
> > implementation.
> Thanks a lot, Sidhartha, I'm glad to hear that it works for you too.
>
> I expect that it will be done differently in the future: maybe generalizing
> the additional fields to further "private"s as you did, letting different
> subsystems accessorize them differently; or removing them completely from
> struct folio, letting subsystems declare their own struct folio containers.
> I don't know how that will end up, but this for now seems good and clear.
>
> > Should the usage of page_1 and page_2 also be documented here?
> You must have something interesting in mind to document about them,
> but I cannot guess what! They are for field alignment, not for use.
> (page_2 to help when/if someone needs to add another pageful.)
>
> Do you mean that I should copy the
> 	/* private: the union with struct page is transitional */
> comment from above the original "struct page page;" line I copied?
> Or give all three of them a few underscores to imply not for use?

I think the underscores with a comment about not for use could be helpful.

Thanks,

Sidhartha Kumar

> Thanks,
> Hugh