From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] swsusp: Do not use page flags Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:17:01 +1100 Message-ID: <45F7692D.3010709@yahoo.com.au> References: <200703131117.43818.rjw@sisk.pl> <45F67D9A.8020202@yahoo.com.au> <200703132220.35534.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200703132220.35534.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Peter Zijlstra , Pavel Machek , pm list , Johannes Berg , Christoph Lameter List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, 13 March 2007 11:31, Nick Piggin wrote: > = >>Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >>>On Tuesday, 13 March 2007 10:23, Nick Piggin wrote: >>> >> >>>>I wouldn't say that. You're creating an interface here that is going to= be >>>>used outside swsusp. Users of that interface may not need locking now, = but >>>>that could cause problems down the line. >>> >>> >>>I think we can add the locking when it's necessary. For now, IMHO, it c= ould be >>>confusing to someone who doesn't know the locking is not needed. >> >>I don't know why it would confuse them. We just define the API to >>guarantee the correct locking, and that means the locking _is_ needed. > = > = > Even if there are no users that actually need the locking and probably ne= ver > will be? Probably is the keyword. Why would you *not* make this a sane API? Surely performance isn't the reason? Nor complexity. > For now, register_nosave_region() is to be called by architecture > initialization code _only_ and there's no reason whatsoever why any > architecture would need to call it concurrently from many places. > = > = >>You don't have to care what the callers are doing. That's the beauty >>of a sane API. > = > = > Well, I don't think adding unneded infrastructure is a good thing. But defining good APIs is a very good thing. And with my good API, the lock is not unneeded. >>>>But that's because you even use mark_nosave_pages in your implementatio= n. >>>>Mine uses the nosave regions directly. >>> >>> >>>Well, I think we need two bits per page anyway, to mark free pages and >>>pages allocated by swsusp, so using the nosave regions directly won't sa= ve us >>>much. >> >>Well I think it is a cleaner though. > = > = > This is a matter of opinion, too ... Well, as I'm not volunteering to maintain swsusp, if your opinion is that your way is cleaner, I can't argue ;) So long as it stops wasting those page flags then I'm happy. However the register_nosave API really should use locking, I think. There is absolutely no downside, AFAIKS. -- = SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com =