Re: [RFC 00/11] make try_to_unmap simple
On 03/03/2017 07:41 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Anshuman, > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:52:27PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: >>> Currently, try_to_unmap returns various return value(SWAP_SUCCESS, >>> SWAP_FAIL, SWAP_AGAIN, SWAP_DIRTY and SWAP_MLOCK). When I look into >>> that, it's unncessary complicated so this patch aims for cleaning >>> it up. Change ttu to boolean function so we can remove SWAP_AGAIN, >>> SWAP_DIRTY, SWAP_MLOCK. >> >> It may be a trivial question but apart from being a cleanup does it >> help in improving it's callers some way ? Any other benefits ? > > If you mean some performace, I don't think so. It just aims for cleanup > so caller don't need to think much about return value of try_to_unmap. > What he should consider is just "success/fail". Others will be done in > isolate/putback friends which makes API simple/easy to use. Right, got it. Thanks !
Re: [RFC 00/11] make try_to_unmap simple
On 03/03/2017 07:41 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Anshuman, > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:52:27PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: >>> Currently, try_to_unmap returns various return value(SWAP_SUCCESS, >>> SWAP_FAIL, SWAP_AGAIN, SWAP_DIRTY and SWAP_MLOCK). When I look into >>> that, it's unncessary complicated so this patch aims for cleaning >>> it up. Change ttu to boolean function so we can remove SWAP_AGAIN, >>> SWAP_DIRTY, SWAP_MLOCK. >> >> It may be a trivial question but apart from being a cleanup does it >> help in improving it's callers some way ? Any other benefits ? > > If you mean some performace, I don't think so. It just aims for cleanup > so caller don't need to think much about return value of try_to_unmap. > What he should consider is just "success/fail". Others will be done in > isolate/putback friends which makes API simple/easy to use. Right, got it. Thanks !
Re: [RFC 00/11] make try_to_unmap simple
Hi Anshuman, On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:52:27PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Currently, try_to_unmap returns various return value(SWAP_SUCCESS, > > SWAP_FAIL, SWAP_AGAIN, SWAP_DIRTY and SWAP_MLOCK). When I look into > > that, it's unncessary complicated so this patch aims for cleaning > > it up. Change ttu to boolean function so we can remove SWAP_AGAIN, > > SWAP_DIRTY, SWAP_MLOCK. > > It may be a trivial question but apart from being a cleanup does it > help in improving it's callers some way ? Any other benefits ? If you mean some performace, I don't think so. It just aims for cleanup so caller don't need to think much about return value of try_to_unmap. What he should consider is just "success/fail". Others will be done in isolate/putback friends which makes API simple/easy to use. Thanks. > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majord...@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: mailto:"d...@kvack.org;> em...@kvack.org
Re: [RFC 00/11] make try_to_unmap simple
Hi Anshuman, On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:52:27PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Currently, try_to_unmap returns various return value(SWAP_SUCCESS, > > SWAP_FAIL, SWAP_AGAIN, SWAP_DIRTY and SWAP_MLOCK). When I look into > > that, it's unncessary complicated so this patch aims for cleaning > > it up. Change ttu to boolean function so we can remove SWAP_AGAIN, > > SWAP_DIRTY, SWAP_MLOCK. > > It may be a trivial question but apart from being a cleanup does it > help in improving it's callers some way ? Any other benefits ? If you mean some performace, I don't think so. It just aims for cleanup so caller don't need to think much about return value of try_to_unmap. What he should consider is just "success/fail". Others will be done in isolate/putback friends which makes API simple/easy to use. Thanks. > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majord...@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: mailto:"d...@kvack.org;> em...@kvack.org
Re: [RFC 00/11] make try_to_unmap simple
On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > Currently, try_to_unmap returns various return value(SWAP_SUCCESS, > SWAP_FAIL, SWAP_AGAIN, SWAP_DIRTY and SWAP_MLOCK). When I look into > that, it's unncessary complicated so this patch aims for cleaning > it up. Change ttu to boolean function so we can remove SWAP_AGAIN, > SWAP_DIRTY, SWAP_MLOCK. It may be a trivial question but apart from being a cleanup does it help in improving it's callers some way ? Any other benefits ?
Re: [RFC 00/11] make try_to_unmap simple
On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > Currently, try_to_unmap returns various return value(SWAP_SUCCESS, > SWAP_FAIL, SWAP_AGAIN, SWAP_DIRTY and SWAP_MLOCK). When I look into > that, it's unncessary complicated so this patch aims for cleaning > it up. Change ttu to boolean function so we can remove SWAP_AGAIN, > SWAP_DIRTY, SWAP_MLOCK. It may be a trivial question but apart from being a cleanup does it help in improving it's callers some way ? Any other benefits ?
