linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>, <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
	<hughd@google.com>, <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	<akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH] mm: ksm: do not block on page lock when searching stable tree
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:14:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9bf60825-286f-d46c-b6d5-ee8bfffaaa48@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7cf16cfb-3190-dfbd-ce72-92a94d9277f5@linux.alibaba.com>

On 1/30/19 9:47 AM, Yang Shi wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -1673,7 +1688,12 @@ static struct page *stable_tree_search(struct page *page)
>>>                * It would be more elegant to return stable_node
>>>                * than kpage, but that involves more changes.
>>>                */
>>> -            tree_page = get_ksm_page(stable_node_dup, true);
>>> +            tree_page = get_ksm_page(stable_node_dup,
>>> +                         GET_KSM_PAGE_TRYLOCK);
>>> +
>>> +            if (PTR_ERR(tree_page) == -EBUSY)
>>> +                return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>>
>> or just:
>>
>>     if (PTR_ERR(tree_page) == -EBUSY)
>>         return tree_page;
>>
>> right?
> 
> Either looks fine to me. Returning errno may look more explicit? Anyway I really don't have preference.

Yes, either one is fine. I like to see less code on the screen, all else being equal,
but it's an extremely minor point, and sometimes being explicit instead is better anyway.



thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA


  reply	other threads:[~2019-01-30 18:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-29 20:29 Yang Shi
2019-01-30  7:14 ` John Hubbard
2019-01-30 17:47   ` Yang Shi
2019-01-30 18:14     ` John Hubbard [this message]
2019-01-30  8:13 ` Kirill Tkhai

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=9bf60825-286f-d46c-b6d5-ee8bfffaaa48@nvidia.com \
    --to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.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