Re: [RFC][Patch v11 1/2] mm: page_hinting: core infrastructure

[Nitesh Narayan Lal]

On 7/11/19 11:25 AM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 7/10/19 4:45 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 7/10/19 12:51 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>> +struct zone_free_area {
>>> +	unsigned long *bitmap;
>>> +	unsigned long base_pfn;
>>> +	unsigned long end_pfn;
>>> +	atomic_t free_pages;
>>> +	unsigned long nbits;
>>> +} free_area[MAX_NR_ZONES];
>> Why do we need an extra data structure.  What's wrong with putting
>> per-zone data in ... 'struct zone'?
> Will it be acceptable to add fields in struct zone, when they will only
> be used by page hinting?
>>   The cover letter claims that it
>> doesn't touch core-mm infrastructure, but if it depends on mechanisms
>> like this, I think that's a very bad thing.
>>
>> To be honest, I'm not sure this series is worth reviewing at this point.
>>  It's horribly lightly commented and full of kernel antipatterns lik
>>
>> void func()
>> {
>> 	if () {
>> 		... indent entire logic
>> 		... of function
>> 	}
>> }
> I usually run checkpatch to detect such indentation issues. For the
> patches, I shared it didn't show me any issues.
My bad I think I jumped here, I saw what you are referring to here.
I will fix these kind of things.
>> It has big "TODO"s.  It's virtually comment-free.  I'm shocked it's at
>> the 11th version and still looking like this.
>>
>>> +
>>> +		for (zone_idx = 0; zone_idx < MAX_NR_ZONES; zone_idx++) {
>>> +			unsigned long pages = free_area[zone_idx].end_pfn -
>>> +					free_area[zone_idx].base_pfn;
>>> +			bitmap_size = (pages >> PAGE_HINTING_MIN_ORDER) + 1;
>>> +			if (!bitmap_size)
>>> +				continue;
>>> +			free_area[zone_idx].bitmap = bitmap_zalloc(bitmap_size,
>>> +								   GFP_KERNEL);
>> This doesn't support sparse zones.  We can have zones with massive
>> spanned page sizes, but very few present pages.  On those zones, this
>> will exhaust memory for no good reason.
>>
>> Comparing this to Alex's patch set, it's of much lower quality and at a
>> much earlier stage of development.  The two sets are not really even
>> comparable right now.  This certainly doesn't sell me on (or even really
>> enumerate the deltas in) this approach vs. Alex's.
>>
-- 
Thanks
Nitesh