From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Bob Liu <lliubbo@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] change alloc function in pcpu_alloc_pages
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:15:44 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BC6CB30.7030308@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <h2w28c262361004150100ne936d943u28f76c0f171d3db8@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
On 04/15/2010 05:00 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Yes. I don't like it.
> With it, someone who does care about API usage uses alloc_pages_exact_node but
> someone who don't have a time or careless uses alloc_pages_node.
> It would make API fragmentation and not good.
> Maybe we can weed out -1 and make new API which is more clear.
>
> * struct page *alloc_pages_any_node(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order);
> * struct page *alloc_pages_exact_node(int nid, gfp_mask, unsigned int order);
I'm not an expert on that part of the kernel but isn't
alloc_pages_any_node() identical to alloc_pages_exact_node()? All
that's necessary to do now is to weed out callers which pass in
negative nid to alloc_pages_node(), right? If so, why not just do a
clean sweep of alloc_pages_node() users and update them so that they
don't call in w/ -1 nid and add WARN_ON_ONCE() in alloc_pages_node()?
Is there any reason to keep both variants going forward? If not,
introducing new API just to weed out invalid usages seems like an
overkill.
Thanks.
--
tejun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Bob Liu <lliubbo@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] change alloc function in pcpu_alloc_pages
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:15:44 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BC6CB30.7030308@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <h2w28c262361004150100ne936d943u28f76c0f171d3db8@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
On 04/15/2010 05:00 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Yes. I don't like it.
> With it, someone who does care about API usage uses alloc_pages_exact_node but
> someone who don't have a time or careless uses alloc_pages_node.
> It would make API fragmentation and not good.
> Maybe we can weed out -1 and make new API which is more clear.
>
> * struct page *alloc_pages_any_node(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order);
> * struct page *alloc_pages_exact_node(int nid, gfp_mask, unsigned int order);
I'm not an expert on that part of the kernel but isn't
alloc_pages_any_node() identical to alloc_pages_exact_node()? All
that's necessary to do now is to weed out callers which pass in
negative nid to alloc_pages_node(), right? If so, why not just do a
clean sweep of alloc_pages_node() users and update them so that they
don't call in w/ -1 nid and add WARN_ON_ONCE() in alloc_pages_node()?
Is there any reason to keep both variants going forward? If not,
introducing new API just to weed out invalid usages seems like an
overkill.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-15 8:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 106+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-13 15:24 [PATCH 1/6] Remove node's validity check in alloc_pages Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:24 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:24 ` [PATCH 2/6] change alloc function in pcpu_alloc_pages Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:24 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 15:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-14 23:39 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-14 23:39 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 1:31 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 1:31 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 7:21 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 7:21 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 8:00 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 8:00 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 8:15 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2010-04-15 8:15 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 9:40 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 9:40 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 10:08 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 10:08 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 10:21 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 10:21 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 10:33 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 10:33 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 11:43 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 11:43 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 11:49 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 11:49 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-16 16:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-16 16:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-16 19:13 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2010-04-16 19:13 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2010-04-18 15:55 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-18 15:55 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-18 15:54 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-18 15:54 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-18 21:22 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-18 21:22 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-19 0:03 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-19 17:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-20 0:20 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-20 0:20 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-19 17:38 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-19 17:38 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-19 22:27 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-19 22:27 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-20 15:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-20 15:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-21 10:48 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-21 10:48 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-22 10:15 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-22 10:15 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-21 14:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-21 14:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-21 17:06 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-21 17:06 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:25 ` [PATCH 3/6] change alloc function in alloc_slab_page Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:25 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:52 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 15:52 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 16:01 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 16:01 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 16:14 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 16:14 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 21:37 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-13 21:37 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-13 23:40 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 23:40 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 23:55 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-13 23:55 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-14 0:02 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-14 0:02 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-14 0:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-14 0:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-14 12:23 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-04-14 12:23 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-04-16 16:10 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-16 16:10 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-18 18:49 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-04-18 18:49 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-04-19 9:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-19 9:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 15:25 ` [PATCH 4/6] change alloc function in vmemmap_alloc_block Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:25 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:59 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 15:59 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-14 0:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-14 0:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-13 15:25 ` [PATCH 5/6] change alloc function in __vmalloc_area_node Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:25 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 16:02 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 16:02 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-14 0:22 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-14 0:22 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-14 0:33 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-14 0:33 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:25 ` [PATCH 6/6] Add comment in alloc_pages_exact_node Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:25 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 16:13 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 16:13 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 16:20 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 16:20 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:32 ` [PATCH 1/6] Remove node's validity check in alloc_pages Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 15:32 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-14 0:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-14 0:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
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=4BC6CB30.7030308@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lliubbo@gmail.com \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.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.