From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751760AbbJOJxo (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2015 05:53:44 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]:36762 "EHLO mail-pa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750817AbbJOJxn (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2015 05:53:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:53:28 +0900 From: Minchan Kim To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Hui Zhu , Nitin Gupta , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Mel Gorman , Dave Hansen , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Andrea Arcangeli , Alexander Duyck , Tejun Heo , Joonsoo Kim , Naoya Horiguchi , Jennifer Herbert , Hugh Dickins , Vladimir Davydov , David Rientjes , Sasha Levin , "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Wanpeng Li , Geert Uytterhoeven , Greg Thelen , Al Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, teawater@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/3] migrate: new struct migration and add it to struct page Message-ID: <20151015095328.GA7001@bgram> References: <1444900142-1996-1-git-send-email-zhuhui@xiaomi.com> <1444900142-1996-2-git-send-email-zhuhui@xiaomi.com> <561F7173.3000900@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <561F7173.3000900@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:27:15AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 10/15/2015 11:09 AM, Hui Zhu wrote: > >I got that add function interfaces is really not a good idea. > >So I add a new struct migration to put all migration interfaces and add > >this struct to struct page as union of "mapping". > > That's better, but not as flexible as the previously proposed > approaches that Sergey pointed you at: > > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1507.0/03233.html > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1508.1/00696.html > > There the operations are reachable via mapping, so we can support > the special operations migration also when mapping is otherwise > needed; your patch excludes mapping. > Hello Hui, FYI, I take over the work from Gioh and have a plan to improve the work. So, Could you wait a bit? Of course, if you have better idea, feel free to post it. Thanks.