From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94EE714F135 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 02:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725850632; cv=none; b=KavNSjtS3htmPJshegrRfOiSN+3UhuVjiyw59C5F+exIq2NHuxAStQf1+75vDlATEJWUhE763EWClzyZvUcv9KVHTNmN/ziXsASwB04kpqH6zKkSGwGqRekmS9mkTu04+fmlKxHwSj1LswVOzDw7h7844kzNmx4TGwWMHI3GxMM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725850632; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aGBpBECIxUDcJl7d2FvRplKeeGBsPRv2Xidc2s0bMes=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=el00VqRQ9dFNCX2M2xPuv/djdUfHfrtjBuqlnG1lQzgGBlBUTYnnYxvZvbyT3+f1SjqfBJgGydRaIS3xfwZx1opQJ23CdUKOG/M7EIsFUMJBND6qjuS/mmunkRs+ybth+kChYshh7O+I9e2Q2/IQQKGxdEUk6iWJVuP8eWbbGUI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=L7/xVjOx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="L7/xVjOx" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1725850629; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=auyTagAR38/zXhvomOHgx5kToruU3DjXNgh8gDAvr98=; b=L7/xVjOxeUo2C1MH73OWOEH3pZBGPcWadr5aHZrLfiuYskCaYYT4eKX+74Mbr4IHzSU4AS phV5rP75AMH+3xx8Rs4wWhpyaVPQLAluYKYoBjSKM7m+YRrAIrjLyZTWwLRytuEFvoNGGg 9mMN9tEWIYi/CRsKxZCmrNiJsSYBK9Y= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-199-pGVghPk5NqKckzPzmSfDCQ-1; Sun, 08 Sep 2024 22:57:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: pGVghPk5NqKckzPzmSfDCQ-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAFF51953954; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 02:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.72.112.58]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4140A19560AA; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 02:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:56:57 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , LKML , Christoph Hellwig , Michal Hocko , Oleksiy Avramchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc.c: Use "high-order" in description non 0-order pages Message-ID: References: <20240906095049.3486-1-urezki@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240906095049.3486-1-urezki@gmail.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 On 09/06/24 at 11:50am, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > In many places, in the comments, we use both "higher-order" and > "high-order" to describe the non 0-order pages. That is confusing, > because a "higher-order" statement does not reflect what it is > compared with. > > Suggested-by: Baoquan He > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) > --- > mm/vmalloc.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) This looks good to me, thanks. Reviewed-by: Baoquan He By the way, do you plan to clean up the rest of them in other places? > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > index 37b6e987234e..c7bd8740b8a2 100644 > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > @@ -3590,7 +3590,7 @@ vm_area_alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp, int nid, > break; > > /* > - * Higher order allocations must be able to be treated as > + * High-order allocations must be able to be treated as > * independent small pages by callers (as they can with > * small-page vmallocs). Some drivers do their own refcounting > * on vmalloc_to_page() pages, some use page->mapping, > @@ -3653,7 +3653,7 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask, > page_order = vm_area_page_order(area); > > /* > - * Higher order nofail allocations are really expensive and > + * High-order nofail allocations are really expensive and > * potentially dangerous (pre-mature OOM, disruptive reclaim > * and compaction etc. > * > -- > 2.39.2 >