From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-f198.google.com (mail-oi1-f198.google.com [209.85.167.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08DE6B000A for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi1-f198.google.com with SMTP id j186-v6so3354545oih.5 for ; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 04:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b28-v6si577688otd.72.2018.10.03.04.17.56 for ; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 04:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/hugetlb: Enable PUD level huge page migration References: <1538482531-26883-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <1538482531-26883-2-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <835085a2-79c2-4eb5-2c10-13bb2893f611@arm.com> From: Suzuki K Poulose Message-ID: <789784ee-4830-753b-5d14-f5c7d90622c4@arm.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:17:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Anshuman Khandual , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: punit.agrawal@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, Steven.Price@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, mhocko@kernel.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com On 03/10/18 12:10, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > On 10/03/2018 03:52 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> >> >> On 02/10/18 13:56, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/02/2018 06:08 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >>>> Hi Anshuman >>>> >>>> On 02/10/18 13:15, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>>> Architectures like arm64 have PUD level HugeTLB pages for certain configs >>>>> (1GB huge page is PUD based on ARM64_4K_PAGES base page size) that can be >>>>> enabled for migration. It can be achieved through checking for PUD_SHIFT >>>>> order based HugeTLB pages during migration. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual >>>>> --- >>>>> A A include/linux/hugetlb.h | 3 ++- >>>>> A A 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h >>>>> index 6b68e34..9c1b77f 100644 >>>>> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h >>>>> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h >>>>> @@ -483,7 +483,8 @@ static inline bool hugepage_migration_supported(struct hstate *h) >>>>> A A { >>>>> A A #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_HUGEPAGE_MIGRATION >>>>> A A A A A A if ((huge_page_shift(h) == PMD_SHIFT) || >>>>> -A A A A A A A (huge_page_shift(h) == PGDIR_SHIFT)) >>>>> +A A A A A A A (huge_page_shift(h) == PUD_SHIFT) || >>>> >>>> >>>>> +A A A A A A A A A A A (huge_page_shift(h) == PGDIR_SHIFT)) >>>> >>>> nit: Extra Tab ^^. >>> >>> The tab is in there when you apply this patch and all three checks are tab separated >>> in a newline. >> >> Well, with the patch applied, at least I can see 2 tabs for the >> PUD_SHIFT check and 3 tabs for PGDIR_SHIFT check. Which seems >> inconsistent. Is it just me (my mail client) ? > > I am sorry, you are right. Did not understand your point earlier. Yeah there is > increasing number of tabs for each new line with a conditional check. Is there > a problem with this style of indentation ? Though I will be happy to change. I have been under the idea that all the checks at the same level could have the same indentation. (i.e, 2 tabs in this case for each). Looks like there is no rule about it. How about replacing it with a switch..case ? Cheers Suzuki