From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F259E6B027E for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:48:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id f3so2726928wmc.8 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:48:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k5si4169131wmg.228.2018.02.12.10.48.05 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:48:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:47:59 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] mm: page_alloc: skip over regions of invalid pfns on UMA Message-ID: <20180212184759.GI3443@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180124143545.31963-1-erosca@de.adit-jv.com> <20180124143545.31963-2-erosca@de.adit-jv.com> <20180129184746.GK21609@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180203122422.GA11832@vmlxhi-102.adit-jv.com> <20180212150314.GG3443@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180212161640.GA30811@vmlxhi-102.adit-jv.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180212161640.GA30811@vmlxhi-102.adit-jv.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Eugeniu Rosca Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , Ard Biesheuvel , Steven Sistare , AKASHI Takahiro , Pavel Tatashin , Gioh Kim , Heiko Carstens , Wei Yang , Miles Chen , Vlastimil Babka , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Paul Burton , James Hartley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon 12-02-18 17:16:40, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:03:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Sat 03-02-18 13:24:22, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > [...] > > > That said, I really hope this won't be the last comment in the thread > > > and appropriate suggestions will come on how to go forward. > > > > Just to make sure we are on the same page. I was suggesting the > > following. The patch is slightly larger just because I move > > memblock_next_valid_pfn around which I find better than sprinkling > > ifdefs around. Please note I haven't tried to compile test this. > > I got your point. So, I was wrong. You are not preferring v2 of this > patch, but suggest a new variant of it. For the record, I've also > build/boot-tested your variant with no issues. The reason I did not > make it my favorite is to allow reviewers to concentrate on what's > actually the essence of this change, i.e. relaxing the dependency of > memblock_next_valid_pfn() from HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP (which requires/ > depends on NUMA) to HAVE_MEMBLOCK (which doesn't). Yes, and that makes perfect sense. > As I've said in some previous reply, I am open minded about which > variant is selected by MM people, since, from my point of view, all of > them do the same thing with variable degree of code readability. Agreed. I just wanted to reduce to necessity to define memblock_next_valid_pfn for !CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK. IS_ENABLED check also nicely hides the ifdefery. I also prefer to have more compact ifdef blocks rather than smaller ones split by other functions. > For me it's not a problem to submit a new patch. I guess that a > prerequisite for this is to reach some agreement on what people think is > the best option, which I feel didn't occur yet. I do not have a _strong_ preference here as well. So I will leave the decision to you. In any case feel free to add Acked-by: Michal Hocko -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org