[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=MmiswiBwEjS_7S9++JjRb0pbD0kcvY_UhrU4zN0tTiVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 09:28:29 -0800
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bfoster@...hat.com,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] workingset: refactor LRU refault to expose refault
recency check
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 7:22 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:51:38AM -0800, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > +static bool lru_gen_test_recent(void *shadow, bool file, int *memcgid,
> > + struct pglist_data **pgdat, unsigned long *token, bool *workingset)
>
> This line needs more than one tab indent. I tend to use two tabs,
> others try to line up the parameters with the opening '('. But
> one tab is too visually similar to the body of the function.
>
> > rcu_read_lock();
> >
> > memcg = folio_memcg_rcu(folio);
> > +
> > + if (!lru_gen_test_recent(shadow, type, &memcg_id, &pgdat, &token,
> > + &workingset))
>
> Similarly here. &workingset looks like it's part of the body of the if,
> not part of the function call.
>
> > + goto unlock;
> > +
> > if (memcg_id != mem_cgroup_id(memcg))
> > goto unlock;
> >
That's fair - I'll add another tab to each of these lines! Let me
know if you have any other concerns.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists