Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Ye Liu <ye.liu@linux.dev>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Move OOM-related procfs code to fs/proc/oom.c
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 12:54:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <atCw0gk77fF5ISQV@tiehlicka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e51c14e9-5559-4ff7-8a38-de815a8f8230@linux.dev>

On Thu 15-10-26 09:32:53, Ye Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2026/10/14 17:32, Michal Hocko 写道:
> > On Wed 14-10-26 16:54:12, Ye Liu wrote:
> >> From: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
> >>
> >> fs/proc/base.c is a large file (~3700 lines) handling all per-process
> >> procfs entries. The OOM score, oom_adj, and oom_score_adj interface
> >> code is self-contained and has no dependencies on other parts of
> >> base.c, so move it into a dedicated fs/proc/oom.c following the same
> >> pattern as fs/proc/fd.c and fs/proc/task_mmu.c.
> >>
> >> This makes both files easier to read and keeps OOM-related procfs
> >> entries together in one place.
> > 
> > Are there plans to separate other functionality or is this one off
> > thing?
> > In general I am not against of moving stuff to more specialized files.
> > An obvious downside is a review as it is quite easy to overlook a subtle
> > change when moving so much code. Something worth undertaking if there
> > is a bigger goal. Not so sure if this is just a one of and fs/proc/base.c
> > still keeps other random stuff in.
> > 
> 
> Hi Michal,
> 
> This is a one-off move specifically for the OOM-related procfs code.
> I don't have a broader plan to split up fs/proc/base.c at this time.
> 
> I understand the concern about subtle changes during code moves.
> To address that, the patch is a pure relocation with no functional
> modifications — all function bodies are moved verbatim. 

But you do understand that I effectivelly need to redo the patch to
confirm this is the case, right?

This is something I am not particularly thrilled to do for a single
isolated patch without a larger plan. taks_mmu.c will remain a huge pile
of code after this change. So what's the point for all that effort?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


      reply	other threads:[~2026-10-15 10:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-14  8:54 [PATCH] proc: Move OOM-related procfs code to fs/proc/oom.c Ye Liu
2026-10-14  9:32 ` Michal Hocko
2026-10-15  1:32   ` Ye Liu
2026-10-15 10:54     ` Michal Hocko [this message]

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=atCw0gk77fF5ISQV@tiehlicka \
    --to=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=liuye@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
    --cc=ye.liu@linux.dev \
    /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