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 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ 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 ` [PATCH 2/6] change alloc function in pcpu_alloc_pages Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 15:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-14 23:39 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 1:31 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 7:21 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 8:00 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 8:15 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2010-04-15 9:40 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 10:08 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 10:21 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 10:33 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-15 11:43 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-15 11:49 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-16 16:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-16 19:13 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2010-04-18 15:55 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-18 15:54 ` Minchan Kim
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
2010-04-19 17:38 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-19 22:27 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-20 15:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-21 10:48 ` Tejun Heo
2010-04-22 10:15 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-21 14:15 ` Christoph Lameter
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 15:52 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 16:01 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 16:14 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-13 21:37 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-13 23:40 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-13 23:55 ` David Rientjes
2010-04-14 0:02 ` Minchan Kim
2010-04-14 0:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-14 12:23 ` Pekka Enberg
2010-04-16 16:10 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-04-18 18:49 ` Pekka Enberg
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 15:59 ` Mel Gorman
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 16:02 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-14 0:22 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
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 16:13 ` Mel Gorman
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
2010-04-14 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 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).