[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200120003131.GA26292@richard>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:31:31 +0800
From: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com,
yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] mm/migrate.c: not necessary to check start and i
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 02:14:28PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jan 2020, Wei Yang wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>> index ba7cf4fa43a0..c3ef70de5876 100644
>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>> @@ -1664,11 +1664,9 @@ static int do_pages_move(struct mm_struct *mm, nodemask_t task_nodes,
>> err = do_move_pages_to_node(mm, &pagelist, current_node);
>> if (err)
>> goto out;
>> - if (i > start) {
>> - err = store_status(status, start, current_node, i - start);
>> - if (err)
>> - goto out;
>> - }
>> + err = store_status(status, start, current_node, i - start);
>> + if (err)
>> + goto out;
>> current_node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> }
>> out_flush:
>
>Not sure this is useful, it relies on the implementation of store_status()
>when i == start and the overhead of the function call should actually be
>slower than the simple conditional to avoid it in that case?
Not sure about this.
While this patch is a transient state for the following cleanup. The purpose
of this is to make the consolidation a little easy to review.
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
Powered by blists - more mailing lists