[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 1/4] mempolicy: convert MPOL constants to enum
    On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:

    > However, once inside the kernel, how we store this flag in struct mempolicy,
    > and how we pass it about between kernel routines, is our choice.
    > We can leave it packed, and unpack and repack it each time we consider the
    > flag and mode bits, or we can store and pass it as separate flags.
    > I urge us to consider handling it as separate flags within the kernel
    > because it most clearly and explicitly represents what is going on logically.
    > There are two different kinds of flags here, the original mempolicy modes,
    > and these meta modes (MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES, being the first example) which
    > affect the nodemask intepretation.

    Again, if you did it this way, the lower MPOL_FLAG_SHIFT bits of the new
    'flags' member would always be zero if you are still going to use the
    MPOL_F_* defines from linux/mempolicy.h to do your bit testing.

    I do not subscribe to the theory that just because we have a couple extra
    bytes of space somewhere in struct mempolicy that we have to use it

    > Cramming both these into a single int is necessary across the kernel-user API,
    > but it's an obfuscation that is not needed, therefore better avoided, within
    > the kernel code.

    It makes the kernel code simpler, in a way.

    Now we only have to pass a single actual among functions that include both
    the mode and optional flags (there are a lot of them and they span not
    only the VM but also filesystem code). The catch is that we have to use a
    mpol_mode() wrapper for mode conditionals or switch statements.

    But testing the flags is just as easy as

    if (mode & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) {

    That test would remain unchanged (except for s/mode/flags/) if flags were
    stored in a separate member.

    So by storing them both in an 'unsigned short' member of struct mempolicy:

    - we don't use any additional memory (and we can use those two extra
    bytes you identified earlier later), and

    - we only have to pass a single actual to many different functions that
    require both the mode and optional mode flags.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-13 03:45    [W:0.021 / U:4.660 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site