Re: [PATCH V4] mm/damon: Remove duplicate get_monitoring_region() definitions

[SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:41:05 +0800 Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> In lru_sort.c and reclaim.c, they are all defining get_monitoring_region()
> function, there is no need to define it separately.
> 
> As 'get_monitoring_region()' is not a 'static' function anymore, we try
> to use a prefix to distinguish with other functions, so there rename it
> to 'damon_find_biggest_system_ram'.
> 
> Suggested-by: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/damon.h | 11 +++++++++++
>  mm/damon/core.c       | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  mm/damon/lru_sort.c   | 37 ++-----------------------------------
>  mm/damon/reclaim.c    | 37 ++-----------------------------------
>  4 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/damon.h b/include/linux/damon.h
> index 7b1f4a488230..6c863b281fb2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/damon.h
> +++ b/include/linux/damon.h
> @@ -448,6 +448,16 @@ struct damon_ctx {
>  	struct list_head schemes;
>  };
>  
> +/**
> + * struct damon_system_ram_region - System RAM resource address region of [@start, @end).

I prefer 80 columns, let's break down this line.
https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-style.html#breaking-long-lines-and-strings

Also this struct is gonna be used by only damon_find_biggest_system_ram(), so I
think it might make more sense to move this into core.c.

And, as this is not aimed to directly be used by external API users, I think it
would make more sense to hide from kernel doc (/* instead of /**).

> + * @start:	Start address of the  (inclusive).

of the 'region'?

> + * @end:	End address of the region (exclusive).

I like the nice explanation: whether its inclusive or exclusive.

> + */
> +struct damon_system_ram_region {
> +	unsigned long start;
> +	unsigned long end;
> +};
> +

As this struct is only used by damon_find_biggest_system_ram(), I think it
might make more sense to move this into core.c?

Below parts all look good.

Also, this patch seems cannot cleanly applied on top of the latest
mm/mm-unstable branch.  Would need rebase.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]