Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752888AbdLMMrg (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Dec 2017 07:47:36 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:45000 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752786AbdLMMre (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Dec 2017 07:47:34 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot+EnsxX/shDVq4RgqN2C/FAHYmIrR8B+UvVvIYq2jiqQtooKp5y0kpdqjJi2qJgTh4fjbuZA== Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:47:31 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Zi Yan , Naoya Horiguchi , Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , Andrea Reale , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mm, numa: rework do_pages_move Message-ID: <20171213124731.hmg4r5m3efybgjtx@node.shutemov.name> References: <20171207143401.GK20234@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171208161559.27313-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20171208161559.27313-2-mhocko@kernel.org> <20171213120733.umeb7rylswl7chi5@node.shutemov.name> <20171213121703.GD25185@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171213121703.GD25185@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171208 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1032 Lines: 28 On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:17:03PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 13-12-17 15:07:33, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > [...] > > The approach looks fine to me. > > > > But patch is rather large and hard to review. And how git mixed add/remove > > lines doesn't help too. Any chance to split it up further? > > I was trying to do that but this is a drop in replacement so it is quite > hard to do in smaller pieces. I've already put the allocation callback > cleanup into a separate one but this is about all that I figured how to > split. If you have any suggestions I am willing to try them out. "git diff --patience" seems generate more readable output for the patch. > > One nitpick: I don't think 'chunk' terminology should go away with the > > patch. > > Not sure what you mean here. I have kept chunk_start, chunk_node, so I > am not really changing that terminology We don't really have chunks anymore, right? We still *may* have per-node batching, but.. Maybe just 'start' and 'current_node'? -- Kirill A. Shutemov