From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98FE510F1 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:57:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714323448; cv=none; b=scnkOl61PmwvYRTIMLV3abnAdM7tk2urAHF0GeBJsJR/jDFpyQh5aDWF5EpSw4J1SiujZilo0QLWXMNvuMgL8TppOf1yFyohwUzP+Jdmw95RC5c28DZORxhNWOonkbG2rnV0CLvNlkOmR8KaZUeJlmBnOoFvsLA3CMhylCY6/0g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714323448; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+q0HngoqBGEOM4n3Pd5X4NB98f/1ih4IqA8etWcm2MM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=FmOAYxHRIzUAtDk3LTuT8i3QWL5j3tf2GWY3B57/iOTV9fjlEWErW/nggKe/6KgURWHzZwRqk4lO75ZfHa46ayQmc1CVfBCxMalwD0kYcn+MHk+ENBHQ7OvZ1wyZoAPmmqTJrhg/0s0oZK+daumRa14F5mwcFURCPddba8OAn70= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=oBRZROkL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="oBRZROkL" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1EA9C113CC; Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:57:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1714323448; bh=+q0HngoqBGEOM4n3Pd5X4NB98f/1ih4IqA8etWcm2MM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=oBRZROkLVOQA1TvZFVN3l6RjptyiM01VfEwTPrqFPMCF6fJhw9byKoWA/BfwQ9KBb bBZpldHojrG4G+xecw1NM8BcCyl+Cf6y7XeHPxNwF/aeiYB7eB8F7VtQ0CIh7DaunP wSJ7e+mftMKLxmeLyscaAmdb6/nTjAI2bTD0o2YrwxETIK8SUxqybPrOV8M9XXzQbe QgNyFD8gbiLqRoOlJ3+ASoFNcGz1N7j53j7cdvNWmfCAowyU6j0y50WUNqdY4kRgQw fLZyX0cYj+V73XBVpajhjPfGaWuTD71l7ME9XyNdiJoynUEt6rWCm01JMCGsR5osSL KlTGOMrSkmRqA== From: SeongJae Park To: Alex Rusuf Cc: SeongJae Park , damon@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] DAMON: Fix return value from damos_wmark_metric_value Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:57:25 -0700 Message-Id: <20240428165726.46959-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20240428154933.183760-1-yorha.op@gmail.com> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: damon@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Alex, Thank you for this patch! I have a few comments below. For the consistency, could you please use 'mm/damon/core:' as the patch subject prefix instead of 'DAMON:'? On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 18:49:33 +0300 Alex Rusuf wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alex Rusuf Could you pleae add more detailed explanation about this patch, including why the return value is wrong? And, I think we would better to add below tags? Fixes: ee801b7dd782 ("mm/damon/schemes: activate schemes based on a watermarks mechanism") > --- > mm/damon/core.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/damon/core.c b/mm/damon/core.c > index 6d503c1c125e..994ccd272555 100644 > --- a/mm/damon/core.c > +++ b/mm/damon/core.c > @@ -1480,12 +1480,14 @@ static bool kdamond_need_stop(struct damon_ctx *ctx) > return true; > } > > -static unsigned long damos_wmark_metric_value(enum damos_wmark_metric metric) > +static int damos_wmark_metric_value(enum damos_wmark_metric metric, > + unsigned long *metric_value) Because the return value is no more the metric value, what about renaming this function to, say, 'damos_get_wmark_metric_value()'? > { > switch (metric) { > case DAMOS_WMARK_FREE_MEM_RATE: > - return global_zone_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) * 1000 / > + *metric_value = global_zone_page_state(NR_FREE_PAGES) * 1000 / > totalram_pages(); > + return 0; > default: > break; > } > @@ -1500,10 +1502,10 @@ static unsigned long damos_wmark_wait_us(struct damos *scheme) > { > unsigned long metric; > > - if (scheme->wmarks.metric == DAMOS_WMARK_NONE) > + if (scheme->wmarks.metric == DAMOS_WMARK_NONE || > + damos_wmark_metric_value(scheme->wmarks.metric, &metric)) > return 0; DAMOS_WMARK_NONE check can be handled from damos_wmark_metric_value() function. Could you please remove the check here? > > - metric = damos_wmark_metric_value(scheme->wmarks.metric); > /* higher than high watermark or lower than low watermark */ > if (metric > scheme->wmarks.high || scheme->wmarks.low > metric) { > if (scheme->wmarks.activated) > -- > 2.42.0 Thanks, SJ