Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether kswapd sleeps

From	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether kswapd sleeps
Date	2016-07-07 12:00 +0200
Message-ID	<rSeg9-5cz-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <rRryN-79U-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rRvM6-1wX-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <rRJ2F-1R3-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <rRQxb-6Po-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <rSavT-2JR-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:51:21PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > It becomes difficult to tell the difference between "no wakeup and init to
> > zone 0" and "wakeup and reclaim for zone 0". At least that's the problem
> > I ran into when I tried before settling on -1.
> 
> Sorry for bothering you several times. I cannot parse what you mean.
> I didn't mean -1 is problem here but why do we need below two lines
> I removed?
> 

What you have should be fine. The hazard initially was that both
classzone_idx and kswapd_classzone_idx are enum and the signedness of
enum is implementation-dependent. Using max_t avoids that but it's a
subtle. I prefer the  obvious check of kswapd_classzone_idx == 1 because
it is clearer that we're checking for an initialised value instead of
depending on a side-effect of the casting in max_t to do the right thing.

I can apply it if you wish, I just don't think it helps.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

Thread

[PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether kswapd sleeps Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-07-01 22:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-07-05 08:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-07-05 12:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-07-06 02:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-07-06 10:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-07-07 08:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-07-07 12:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-07-07 03:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-07-07 12:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> - 2016-07-08 04:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 08/31] mm, vmscan: simplify the logic deciding whether  kswapd sleeps Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-07-08 12:20 +0200

csiph-web