From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47C46B0257 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lahg1 with SMTP id g1so55283516lah.1 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.parallels.com (relay.parallels.com. [195.214.232.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a8si5870008lbc.107.2015.09.14.05.05.13 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Sep 2015 05:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:04:55 +0300 From: Vladimir Davydov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Replace nr_node_ids for loop with for_each_node in list lru Message-ID: <20150914120455.GD30743@esperanza> References: <1441737107-23103-1-git-send-email-raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1441737107-23103-2-git-send-email-raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150914090010.GB30743@esperanza> <55F6B1F3.1010702@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55F6B1F3.1010702@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Raghavendra K T Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, anton@samba.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gkurz@linux.vnet.ibm.com, zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com, grant.likely@linaro.org, nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 05:09:31PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 09/14/2015 02:30 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:01:46AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > >>The functions used in the patch are in slowpath, which gets called > >>whenever alloc_super is called during mounts. > >> > >>Though this should not make difference for the architectures with > >>sequential numa node ids, for the powerpc which can potentially have > >>sparse node ids (for e.g., 4 node system having numa ids, 0,1,16,17 > >>is common), this patch saves some unnecessary allocations for > >>non existing numa nodes. > >> > >>Even without that saving, perhaps patch makes code more readable. > > > >Do I understand correctly that node 0 must always be in > >node_possible_map? I ask, because we currently test > >lru->node[0].memcg_lrus to determine if the list is memcg aware. > > > > Yes, node 0 is always there. So it should not be a problem. I think it should be mentioned in the comment to list_lru_memcg_aware then. Thanks, Vladimir -- 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: email@kvack.org