linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm/compaction: rename is_via_compact_memory to compaction_with_allocation

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]

Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:58:04 +0800
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm/compaction: rename is_via_compact_memory to
 compaction_with_allocation_order



On 8/5/2023 7:07 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> We have order = -1 via proactive compaction, the is_via_compact_memory is
> not proper name anymore.
> As cc->order informs the compaction to satisfy a allocation with that
> order, so rename it to compaction_with_allocation_order.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
> ---
>   mm/compaction.c | 11 +++++------
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index d8416d3dd445..b5a699ed526b 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -2055,12 +2055,11 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct compact_control *cc)
>   }
>   
>   /*
> - * order == -1 is expected when compacting via
> - * /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory
> + * compact to satisfy allocation with target order
>    */
> -static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order)
> +static inline bool compaction_with_allocation_order(int order)

I know naming is hard, but this name is not good enough that can show 
the compaction mode. But the original one could.

>   {
> -	return order == -1;
> +	return order != -1;
>   }
>   
>   /*
> @@ -2200,7 +2199,7 @@ static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc)
>   		goto out;
>   	}
>   
> -	if (is_via_compact_memory(cc->order))
> +	if (!compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order))
>   		return COMPACT_CONTINUE;
>   
>   	/*
> @@ -2390,7 +2389,7 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc)
>   
>   	cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask);
>   
> -	if (!is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) {
> +	if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) {
>   		unsigned long watermark;
>   
>   		/* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */