[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/10] vmscan: move priority variable into scan_control

> Sorry for the long delay on this. I got distracted by the anon_vma and
> page migration stuff.

Sorry for the delay too. I don't have enough development time recently ;)
I had tested this patch series a while. but now they need to rebase and retest. that's sad.

> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:48:20AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 06:21:35PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <>
> > >
> > > Now very lots function in vmscan have `priority' argument. It consume
> > > stack slightly. To move it on struct scan_control reduce stack.
> >
> > I don't like this much because it obfuscates value communication.
> >
> > Functions no longer have obvious arguments and return values, as it's all
> > passed hidden in that struct.
> >
> > Do you think it's worth it? I would much rather see that thing die than
> > expand on it...
> I don't feel strongly enough to fight about it and reducing stack usage here
> isn't the "fix" anyway. I'll drop this patch for now.

I'm ok either.

> That aside, the page reclaim algorithm maintains a lot of state and the
> "priority" is part of that state. While the struct means that functions might
> not have obvious arguments, passing the state around as arguments gets very
> unwieldly very quickly. I don't think killing scan_control would be as
> nice as you imagine although I do think it should be as small as
> possible.

I don't have strong opinion. I think both you and Hannes were talking correct thing.
But Hannes seems to have more strong opinion. then, I'm tend to drop this one.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-28 04:43    [W:0.089 / U:11.304 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site