linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mm, numa: rework do_pages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:27:53 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Reale <ar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mm, numa: rework do_pages_move

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:10:39PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 13-12-17 15:47:31, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:17:03PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 13-12-17 15:07:33, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > The approach looks fine to me.
> > > > 
> > > > But patch is rather large and hard to review. And how git mixed add/remove
> > > > lines doesn't help too. Any chance to split it up further?
> > > 
> > > I was trying to do that but this is a drop in replacement so it is quite
> > > hard to do in smaller pieces. I've already put the allocation callback
> > > cleanup into a separate one but this is about all that I figured how to
> > > split. If you have any suggestions I am willing to try them out.
> > 
> > "git diff --patience" seems generate more readable output for the patch.
> 
> Hmm, I wasn't aware of this option. Are you suggesting I should use it
> to general the patch to send?

I don't know if it's better in general (it's not default after all), but it
seems helps for this particular case.

> 
> > > > One nitpick: I don't think 'chunk' terminology should go away with the
> > > > patch.
> > > 
> > > Not sure what you mean here. I have kept chunk_start, chunk_node, so I
> > > am not really changing that terminology
> > 
> > We don't really have chunks anymore, right? We still *may* have per-node
> > batching, but..
> > 
> > Maybe just 'start' and 'current_node'?
> 
> Ohh, I've read your response that you want to preserve the naming. I can
> certainly do the rename.

Yep, that's better.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov