linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] change alloc function in pcpu_alloc

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <o2p28c262361004191720n1c2bc086ub93a195b612c7f01@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:20:27 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Bob Liu <lliubbo@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] change alloc function in pcpu_alloc_pages

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Christoph Lameter
<cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
>> Let's tidy my table.
>>
>> I made quick patch to show the concept with one example of pci-dma.
>> (Sorry but I attach patch since web gmail's mangling.)
>>
>> On UMA, we can change alloc_pages with
>> alloc_pages_exact_node(numa_node_id(),....)
>> (Actually, the patch is already merged mmotm)
>
> UMA does not have the concept of nodes. Whatever node you specify is
> irrelevant. Please remove the patch from mmotm.

I didn't change API name. The patch is just for optimization.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/14/225
I think it's reasonable in UMA.
Why do you want to remove it?

Do you dislike alloc_pages_exact_node naming?
I added comment.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/14/230
Do you think it isn't enough?

This patch results from misunderstanding of alloc_pages_exact_node.
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=127109064101184&w=2)
At that time, I thought naming changing is worth.
But many people don't like it.
Okay. It was just trial and if everyone dislike, I don't have any strong cause.
But this patch series don't relate to it. Again said, It's just for
optimization patch.

Let's clarify other's opinion.

1. "I dislike alloc_pages_exact_node naming. Let's change it with more
clear name."
2. "I hate alloc_pages_exact_node. It's trivial optimization. Let's
remove it and replace it with alloc_pages_node."
3. "alloc_pages_exact_node naming is not bad. Let's add the comment to
clear name"
4. "Let's cleanup alloc_pages_xxx in this change as well as 3.
5. "Please, don't touch. Remain whole of thing like as-is."

I think Chrsitop selects 5 or 1, Tejun selects 2, Mel selects 3, me
want to 4 but is satisfied with 3. Right?

If we selects 5, In future, there are confusing between
alloc_pages_node and alloc_pages_exact_node.So I don't want it.

If we select 2, We already have many place of alloc_pages_exact_node.
And I add this patch series. So most of caller uses alloc_pages_exact_node now.
Isn't it trivial?

So I want 3 at lest although you guys don't like 4.
Please, suggest better idea to me. :)

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/