linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm, vmscan: show LRU name in mm_vmscan_lru

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: <1a8baddb-842d-31d0-dede-3fb04ed5d9ae@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:40:16 +0200
From:   Nikolay Borisov <n.borisov.lkml@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm, vmscan: show LRU name in mm_vmscan_lru_isolate
 tracepoint



On 28.12.2016 18:00, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 28-12-16 17:50:31, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28.12.2016 17:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>>>
>>> mm_vmscan_lru_isolate currently prints only whether the LRU we isolate
>>> from is file or anonymous but we do not know which LRU this is. It is
>>> useful to know whether the list is file or anonymous as well. Change
>>
>> Maybe you wanted to say whether the list is ACTIVE/INACTIVE ?
> 
> You are right. I will update the wording to:
> "
> mm_vmscan_lru_isolate currently prints only whether the LRU we isolate
> from is file or anonymous but we do not know which LRU this is. It is
> useful to know whether the list is active or inactive as well as we
> use the same function to isolate pages for both of them. Change
> the tracepoint to show symbolic names of the lru rather.
> "
> 
> Does it sound better?

It's better. Just one more nit about the " as well as we
use the same function to isolate pages for both of them"

I think this can be reworded better. The way I understand is - it's
better to know whether it's active/inactive since we are using the same
function to do both, correct? If so then then perhaps the following is a
bit more clear:

"
It is useful to know whether the list is active or inactive, since we
are using the same function to isolate pages from both of them and it's
hard to distinguish otherwise.
"

But as I said - it's a minor nit.


> 
> Thanks!
>