linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	ying.huang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] mm/mempolicy: unify the preprocessing for mbind and set_mempolicy
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 20:31:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210527123113.GB7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YK9MxT8Bwt/TnqWa@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 09:39:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-05-21 13:01:40, Feng Tang wrote:
> > Currently the kernel_mbind() and kernel_set_mempolicy() do almost
> > the same operation for parameter sanity check and preprocessing.
> > 
> > Add a helper function to unify the code to reduce the redundancy,
> > and make it easier for changing the pre-processing code in future.
> > 
> > [thanks to David Rientjes for suggesting using helper function
> > instead of macro]
> 
> I appreciate removing the code duplication but I am not really convinced
> this is an improvement. You are conflating two things. One is the mpol
> flags checking and node mask copying. While abstracting the first one
> makes sense to me the later is already a single line of code that makes
> your helper unnecessarily complex. So I would go with sanitize_mpol_flags
> and put a flags handling there and leave get_nodes alone.
>  
> > Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/mempolicy.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> Funny how removing code duplication adds more code than it removes ;)

Yes.

And in last verion which uses macro to unify the code: 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1621499404-67756-3-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com/
it does save some lines :)

 mm/mempolicy.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

Thanks,
Feng

> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index 1964cca..2830bb8 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -1460,6 +1460,20 @@ static int copy_nodes_to_user(unsigned long __user *mask, unsigned long maxnode,
> >  	return copy_to_user(mask, nodes_addr(*nodes), copy) ? -EFAULT : 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline int mpol_pre_process(int *mode, const unsigned long __user *nmask, unsigned long maxnode, nodemask_t *nodes, unsigned short *flags)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	*flags = *mode & MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > +	*mode &= ~MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > +	if ((unsigned int)(*mode) >= MPOL_MAX)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	if ((*flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) && (*flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	ret = get_nodes(nodes, nmask, maxnode);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static long kernel_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
> >  			 unsigned long mode, const unsigned long __user *nmask,
> >  			 unsigned long maxnode, unsigned int flags)
> > @@ -1467,19 +1481,14 @@ static long kernel_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
> >  	nodemask_t nodes;
> >  	int err;
> >  	unsigned short mode_flags;
> > +	int lmode = mode;
> >  
> > -	start = untagged_addr(start);
> > -	mode_flags = mode & MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > -	mode &= ~MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > -	if (mode >= MPOL_MAX)
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > -	if ((mode_flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) &&
> > -	    (mode_flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES))
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > -	err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode);
> > +	err = mpol_pre_process(&lmode, nmask, maxnode, &nodes, &mode_flags);
> >  	if (err)
> >  		return err;
> > -	return do_mbind(start, len, mode, mode_flags, &nodes, flags);
> > +
> > +	start = untagged_addr(start);
> > +	return do_mbind(start, len, lmode, mode_flags, &nodes, flags);
> >  }
> >  
> >  SYSCALL_DEFINE6(mbind, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len,
> > @@ -1495,18 +1504,14 @@ static long kernel_set_mempolicy(int mode, const unsigned long __user *nmask,
> >  {
> >  	int err;
> >  	nodemask_t nodes;
> > -	unsigned short flags;
> > +	unsigned short mode_flags;
> > +	int lmode = mode;
> >  
> > -	flags = mode & MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > -	mode &= ~MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > -	if ((unsigned int)mode >= MPOL_MAX)
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > -	if ((flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) && (flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES))
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > -	err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode);
> > +	err = mpol_pre_process(&lmode, nmask, maxnode, &nodes, &mode_flags);
> >  	if (err)
> >  		return err;
> > -	return do_set_mempolicy(mode, flags, &nodes);
> > +
> > +	return do_set_mempolicy(lmode, mode_flags, &nodes);
> >  }
> >  
> >  SYSCALL_DEFINE3(set_mempolicy, int, mode, const unsigned long __user *, nmask,
> > -- 
> > 2.7.4
> 
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs


  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-27 12:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-26  5:01 [PATCH v1 0/4] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup Feng Tang
2021-05-26  5:01 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] mm/mempolicy: skip nodemask intersect check for 'interleave' when oom Feng Tang
2021-05-27  7:30   ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-27 13:05     ` Feng Tang
2021-05-27 13:15       ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-27 13:22         ` Feng Tang
2021-05-26  5:01 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] mm/mempolicy: unify the preprocessing for mbind and set_mempolicy Feng Tang
2021-05-27  7:39   ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-27 12:31     ` Feng Tang [this message]
2021-05-26  5:01 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] mm/mempolicy: don't handle MPOL_LOCAL like a fake MPOL_PREFERRED policy Feng Tang
2021-05-27  8:12   ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-27 12:06     ` Feng Tang
2021-05-27 12:16       ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-26  5:01 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] mm/mempolicy: kill MPOL_F_LOCAL bit Feng Tang
2021-05-27  8:20   ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-27 12:10     ` Feng Tang
2021-05-27 12:26       ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-27 13:34         ` Feng Tang
2021-05-27 15:34           ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-28  4:39             ` Feng Tang
2021-05-31  7:00               ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-31  7:32                 ` Feng Tang
2021-05-31  8:22                   ` Michal Hocko
2021-05-31  8:29                     ` Feng Tang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210527123113.GB7743@shbuild999.sh.intel.com \
    --to=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox