LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	ying.huang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] mm/mempolicy: unify the create() func for bind/interleave/prefer-many policies
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 21:50:00 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210728135000.GB43486@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YQFS3uZEQvPQ9y8Z@dhcp22.suse.cz>

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@intel.com>
> 
> Other than that LGTM
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.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

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-28 13:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-12  8:09 [PATCH v6 0/6] Introduce multi-preference mempolicy Feng Tang
2021-07-12  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] mm/mempolicy: Add MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes Feng Tang
2021-07-28 12:31   ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 14:11     ` Feng Tang
2021-07-28 16:12       ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-29  7:09         ` Feng Tang
2021-07-29 13:38           ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-29 15:12             ` Feng Tang
2021-07-29 16:21               ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-30  3:05                 ` Feng Tang
2021-07-30  6:36                   ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-30  7:18                     ` Feng Tang
2021-07-30  7:38                       ` Michal Hocko
2021-08-02  8:11                       ` Feng Tang
2021-08-02 11:14                         ` Michal Hocko
2021-08-02 11:33                           ` Feng Tang
2021-08-02 11:47                             ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-12  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] mm/memplicy: add page allocation function for MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY policy Feng Tang
2021-07-28 12:42   ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 15:18     ` Feng Tang
2021-07-28 15:25       ` Feng Tang
2021-07-28 16:15         ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 16:14       ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-12  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] mm/mempolicy: enable page allocation for MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for general cases Feng Tang
2021-07-12  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] mm/hugetlb: add support for mempolicy MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY Feng Tang
2021-07-21 20:49   ` Mike Kravetz
2021-07-22  8:11     ` Feng Tang
2021-07-22  9:42     ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-22 16:21       ` Mike Kravetz
2021-07-12  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] mm/mempolicy: Advertise new MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY Feng Tang
2021-07-28 12:47   ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 13:41     ` Feng Tang
2021-07-12  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] mm/mempolicy: unify the create() func for bind/interleave/prefer-many policies Feng Tang
2021-07-28 12:51   ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-28 13:50     ` Feng Tang [this message]
2021-07-15  0:15 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] Introduce multi-preference mempolicy Andrew Morton
2021-07-15  2:13   ` Feng Tang
2021-07-15 18:49   ` Dave Hansen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210728135000.GB43486@shbuild999.sh.intel.com \
    --to=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] mm/mempolicy: unify the create() func for bind/interleave/prefer-many policies' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).