Re: [PATCH -v3 01/10] mm, swap: Make swap cluster size same of THP size on x86_64

[Johannes Weiner]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:15:52AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 09/07/2016 10:16 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > In this patch, the size of the swap cluster is changed to that of the
> > THP (Transparent Huge Page) on x86_64 architecture (512).  This is for
> > the THP swap support on x86_64.  Where one swap cluster will be used to
> > hold the contents of each THP swapped out.  And some information of the
> > swapped out THP (such as compound map count) will be recorded in the
> > swap_cluster_info data structure.
> > 
> > For other architectures which want THP swap support, THP_SWAP_CLUSTER
> > need to be selected in the Kconfig file for the architecture.
> > 
> > In effect, this will enlarge swap cluster size by 2 times on x86_64.
> > Which may make it harder to find a free cluster when the swap space
> > becomes fragmented.  So that, this may reduce the continuous swap space
> > allocation and sequential write in theory.  The performance test in 0day
> > shows no regressions caused by this.
> 
> This patch needs to be split into two separate ones
> 
> (1) Add THP_SWAP_CLUSTER config option
> (2) Enable CONFIG_THP_SWAP_CLUSTER for X86_64

No, don't do that. This is a bit of an anti-pattern in this series,
where it introduces a thing in one patch, and a user for it in a later
patch. However, in order to judge whether that thing is good or not, I
need to know how exactly it's being used.

So, please, split your series into logical steps, not geographical
ones. When you introduce a function, config option, symbol, add it
along with the code that actually *uses* it, in the same patch.

It goes for this patch, but also stuff like the memcg accounting
functions, get_huge_swap_page() etc.

Start with the logical change, then try to isolate independent changes
that could make sense even without the rest of the series. If that
results in a large patch, then so be it. If a big change is hard to
review, then making me switch back and forth between emails will make
it harder, not easier, to make make sense of it.

Thanks