[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210728135000.GB43486@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 21:50:00 +0800
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] mm/mempolicy: unify the create() func for
bind/interleave/prefer-many policies
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:51:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 12-07-21 16:09:34, Feng Tang wrote:
> > As they all do the same thing: sanity check and save nodemask info, create
> > one mpol_new_nodemask() to reduce redundancy.
>
> Do we really need a create() callback these days?
I think it tries to provide a per-policy sanity check (though
it's the same for all existing ones), and a per-policy
nodemask setting (current 'prefer' policy is different from
others).
> > Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
>
> Other than that LGTM
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Thanks!
- Feng
> > ---
> > mm/mempolicy.c | 24 ++++--------------------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index d90247d6a71b..e5ce5a7e8d92 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static void mpol_relative_nodemask(nodemask_t *ret, const nodemask_t *orig,
> > nodes_onto(*ret, tmp, *rel);
> > }
> >
> > -static int mpol_new_interleave(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > +static int mpol_new_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > {
> > if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
> > return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -210,22 +210,6 @@ static int mpol_new_preferred(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static int mpol_new_preferred_many(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > -{
> > - if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - pol->nodes = *nodes;
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static int mpol_new_bind(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > -{
> > - if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - pol->nodes = *nodes;
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > /*
> > * mpol_set_nodemask is called after mpol_new() to set up the nodemask, if
> > * any, for the new policy. mpol_new() has already validated the nodes
> > @@ -405,7 +389,7 @@ static const struct mempolicy_operations mpol_ops[MPOL_MAX] = {
> > .rebind = mpol_rebind_default,
> > },
> > [MPOL_INTERLEAVE] = {
> > - .create = mpol_new_interleave,
> > + .create = mpol_new_nodemask,
> > .rebind = mpol_rebind_nodemask,
> > },
> > [MPOL_PREFERRED] = {
> > @@ -413,14 +397,14 @@ static const struct mempolicy_operations mpol_ops[MPOL_MAX] = {
> > .rebind = mpol_rebind_preferred,
> > },
> > [MPOL_BIND] = {
> > - .create = mpol_new_bind,
> > + .create = mpol_new_nodemask,
> > .rebind = mpol_rebind_nodemask,
> > },
> > [MPOL_LOCAL] = {
> > .rebind = mpol_rebind_default,
> > },
> > [MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY] = {
> > - .create = mpol_new_preferred_many,
> > + .create = mpol_new_nodemask,
> > .rebind = mpol_rebind_preferred,
> > },
> > };
> > --
> > 2.7.4
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists