Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mm, numa: rework do_pages_move

Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-12-13T14:28:01Z

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 03:10:39PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 13-12-17 15:47:31, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:17:03PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 13-12-17 15:07:33, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > The approach looks fine to me.
> > > >
> > > > But patch is rather large and hard to review. And how git mixed add/remove
> > > > lines doesn't help too. Any chance to split it up further?
> > >
> > > I was trying to do that but this is a drop in replacement so it is quite
> > > hard to do in smaller pieces. I've already put the allocation callback
> > > cleanup into a separate one but this is about all that I figured how to
> > > split. If you have any suggestions I am willing to try them out.
> >
> > "git diff --patience" seems generate more readable output for the patch.
>
> Hmm, I wasn't aware of this option. Are you suggesting I should use it
> to general the patch to send?

I don't know if it's better in general (it's not default after all), but it
seems helps for this particular case.

>
> > > > One nitpick: I don't think 'chunk' terminology should go away with the
> > > > patch.
> > >
> > > Not sure what you mean here. I have kept chunk_start, chunk_node, so I
> > > am not really changing that terminology
> >
> > We don't really have chunks anymore, right? We still *may* have per-node
> > batching, but..
> >
> > Maybe just 'start' and 'current_node'?
>
> Ohh, I've read your response that you want to preserve the naming. I can
> certainly do the rename.

Yep, that's better.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov