From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46304C4BA0B for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 03:42:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0811E2067C for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 03:42:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="O1MiNTbJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0811E2067C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 940676B0003; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:42:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8F07D6B0005; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:42:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7B7EE6B0006; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:42:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0071.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6043F6B0003 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:42:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192BD3A9E for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 03:42:50 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76530881700.30.hot57_52e35aa7c8e3f X-HE-Tag: hot57_52e35aa7c8e3f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4382 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 03:42:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1582688568; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PP+gBT/BOb2iXUdJHBBPJUOUIHHF8gedX5sekL2yHNo=; b=O1MiNTbJH4OvRGrz38UaTx9C9RDixB5lg99VLRJ6c7TPipO0TiCqb000g2ExUsYl4BUqHu 5edapz/zn1Cr2EDUt4uZC8yA9LBoSiqseL+ABjenyWvnl26Rl2ovogJMEEdO8xBbcdORnP t1TZlJlJwAPMupXESBuqHMxk15jbSF0= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-43-euz-Ju7vOdib4MRddEPriQ-1; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:42:45 -0500 X-MC-Unique: euz-Ju7vOdib4MRddEPriQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F402F801E6C; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 03:42:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-12-39.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.39]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A99C8C084; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 03:42:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:42:36 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Michal Hocko , David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, richardw.yang@linux.intel.com, osalvador@suse.de, dan.j.williams@intel.com, rppt@linux.ibm.com, robin.murphy@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] mm/hotplug: Only use subsection map in VMEMMAP case Message-ID: <20200226034236.GD24216@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: <20200220043316.19668-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20200220103849.GG20509@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200221142847.GG4937@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <75b4f840-7454-d6d0-5453-f0a045c852fa@redhat.com> <20200225100226.GM22443@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200225100226.GM22443@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 02/25/20 at 11:02am, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 25-02-20 10:10:45, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > >>> include/linux/mmzone.h | 2 + > > >>> mm/sparse.c | 178 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > >>> 2 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> Why do we need to add so much code to remove a functionality from one > > >> memory model? > > > > > > Hmm, Dan also asked this before. > > > > > > The adding mainly happens in patch 2, 3, 4, including the two newly > > > added function defitions, the code comments above them, and those added > > > dummy functions for !VMEMMAP. > > > > AFAIKS, it's mostly a bunch of newly added comments on top of functions. > > E.g., the comment for fill_subsection_map() alone spans 12 LOC in total. > > I do wonder if we have to be that verbose. We are barely that verbose on > > MM code (and usually I don't see much benefit unless it's a function > > with many users from many different places). > > I would tend to agree here. Not that I am against kernel doc > documentation but these are internal functions and the comment doesn't > really give any better insight IMHO. I would be much more inclined if > this was the general pattern in the respective file but it just stands > out. I saw there are internal functions which have code comments, e.g shrink_slab() in mm/vmscan.c, not only this one place, there are several places. I personally prefer to see code comment for function if possible, this can save time, e.g people can skip the bitmap operation when read code if not necessary. And here I mainly want to tell there are different returned value to note different behaviour when call them. Anyway, it's fine to me to remove them. The two functions are internal, and not so complicated. I will remove them since you both object. However, I disagree with the saying that we should not add code comment for internal function. Thanks Baoquan