Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm, oom: move task_will_free_mem up in the file to be used in process_mrelease

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:13 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 21.07.21 17:33, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:30 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21.07.21 01:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:43:52 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 18.07.21 23:41, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >>>>> process_mrelease needs to be added in the CONFIG_MMU-dependent block which
> >>>>> comes before __task_will_free_mem and task_will_free_mem. Move these
> >>>>> functions before this block so that new process_mrelease syscall can use
> >>>>> them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> changes in v2:
> >>>>> - Fixed build error when CONFIG_MMU=n, reported by kernel test robot. This
> >>>>> required moving task_will_free_mem implemented in the first patch
> >>>>> - Renamed process_reap to process_mrelease, per majority of votes
> >>>>> - Replaced "dying process" with "process which was sent a SIGKILL signal" in
> >>>>> the manual page text, per Florian Weimer
> >>>>> - Added ERRORS section in the manual page text
> >>>>> - Resolved conflicts in syscall numbers caused by the new memfd_secret syscall
> >>>>> - Separated boilerplate code wiring-up the new syscall into a separate patch
> >>>>> to facilitate the review process
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     mm/oom_kill.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> >>>>>     1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> TBH, I really dislike this move as it makes git blame a lot harder with
> >>>> any real benefit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can't you just use prototypes to avoid the move for now in patch #2?
> >>>>
> >>>> static bool task_will_free_mem(struct task_struct *task);
> >>>
> >>> This change makes the code better - it's silly to be adding forward
> >>> declarations just because the functions are in the wrong place.
> >>
> >> I'd really love to learn what "better" here means and if it's rather
> >> subjective. When it comes to navigating the code, we do have established
> >> tools for that (ctags), and personally I couldn't care less where
> >> exactly in a file the code is located.
> >>
> >> Sure, ending up with a forward-declaration for every function might not
> >> be what we want ;)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If that messes up git-blame then let's come up with better tooling
> >>> rather than suffering poorer kernel code because the tools aren't doing
> >>> what we want of them.  Surely?
> >>
> >> I don't agree that what we get is "poorer kernel code" in this very
> >> instance; I can understand that we avoid forward-declarations when
> >> moving smallish functions. But moving two functions with 75 LOC is a bit
> >> too much for my taste at least -- speaking as someone who cares about
> >> easy backports and git-blame.
> >
> > There is a third alternative here to have process_mrelease() at the
> > end of the file with its own #ifdef CONFIG_MMU block, maybe even
> > embedded in the function like this:
> >
> >   int process_mrelease(int pidfd, unsigned int flags)
> > {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MMU
> >          ...
> > #else
> >          return ENOSYS;
> > #endif
> > }
> >
> > This would not require moving other functions.
> > Would that be better than the current approach or the forward declaration?
>
> IMHO that could be an easy, possible alternative.

Andrew, others? Should I follow this path instead?

>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@android.com.
>