From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@zoho.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zijun_hu@htc.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
tj@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
mgorman@techsingularity.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm/vmalloc.c: correct lazy_max_pages() return value
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:37:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160922123736.GA11204@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57E3304E.4060401@zoho.com>
On Thu 22-09-16 09:13:50, zijun_hu wrote:
> On 09/22/2016 08:35 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
[...]
> > The intent is as it is implemented; with your change, lazy_max_pages() is
> > potentially increased depending on the number of online cpus. This is
> > only a heuristic, changing it would need justification on why the new
> > value is better. It is opposite to what the comment says: "to be
> > conservative and not introduce a big latency on huge systems, so go with
> > a less aggressive log scale." NACK to the patch.
> >
> my change potentially make lazy_max_pages() decreased not increased, i seems
> conform with the comment
>
> if the number of online CPUs is not power of 2, both have no any difference
> otherwise, my change remain power of 2 value, and the original code rounds up
> to next power of 2 value, for instance
>
> my change : (32, 64] -> 64
> 32 -> 32, 64 -> 64
> the original code: [32, 63) -> 64
> 32 -> 64, 64 -> 128
You still completely failed to explain _why_ this is an improvement/fix
or why it matters. This all should be in the changelog.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@zoho.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zijun_hu@htc.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
tj@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
mgorman@techsingularity.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm/vmalloc.c: correct lazy_max_pages() return value
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:37:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160922123736.GA11204@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57E3304E.4060401@zoho.com>
On Thu 22-09-16 09:13:50, zijun_hu wrote:
> On 09/22/2016 08:35 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
[...]
> > The intent is as it is implemented; with your change, lazy_max_pages() is
> > potentially increased depending on the number of online cpus. This is
> > only a heuristic, changing it would need justification on why the new
> > value is better. It is opposite to what the comment says: "to be
> > conservative and not introduce a big latency on huge systems, so go with
> > a less aggressive log scale." NACK to the patch.
> >
> my change potentially make lazy_max_pages() decreased not increased, i seems
> conform with the comment
>
> if the number of online CPUs is not power of 2, both have no any difference
> otherwise, my change remain power of 2 value, and the original code rounds up
> to next power of 2 value, for instance
>
> my change : (32, 64] -> 64
> 32 -> 32, 64 -> 64
> the original code: [32, 63) -> 64
> 32 -> 64, 64 -> 128
You still completely failed to explain _why_ this is an improvement/fix
or why it matters. This all should be in the changelog.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-22 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-21 4:27 [PATCH 3/5] mm/vmalloc.c: correct lazy_max_pages() return value zijun_hu
2016-09-21 4:27 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-21 21:21 ` David Rientjes
2016-09-21 21:21 ` David Rientjes
2016-09-21 23:30 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-21 23:30 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-22 0:35 ` David Rientjes
2016-09-22 0:35 ` David Rientjes
2016-09-22 1:13 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-22 1:13 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-22 12:37 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-09-22 12:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-09-22 16:30 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-22 16:30 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-23 3:30 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-09-23 3:30 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-09-23 5:00 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-23 5:00 ` zijun_hu
2016-09-23 7:27 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-09-23 7:27 ` Nicholas Piggin
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=20160922123736.GA11204@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=zijun_hu@htc.com \
--cc=zijun_hu@zoho.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.