Hi > Sorry for the long delay on this. I got distracted by the anon_vma and > page migration stuff. Sorry for the delay too. I don't have enough development time recently ;) I had tested this patch series a while. but now they need to rebase and retest. that's sad. > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:48:20AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 06:21:35PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Now very lots function in vmscan have `priority' argument. It consume > > > stack slightly. To move it on struct scan_control reduce stack. > > > > I don't like this much because it obfuscates value communication. > > > > Functions no longer have obvious arguments and return values, as it's all > > passed hidden in that struct. > > > > Do you think it's worth it? I would much rather see that thing die than > > expand on it... > > I don't feel strongly enough to fight about it and reducing stack usage here > isn't the "fix" anyway. I'll drop this patch for now. I'm ok either. > That aside, the page reclaim algorithm maintains a lot of state and the > "priority" is part of that state. While the struct means that functions might > not have obvious arguments, passing the state around as arguments gets very > unwieldly very quickly. I don't think killing scan_control would be as > nice as you imagine although I do think it should be as small as > possible. I don't have strong opinion. I think both you and Hannes were talking correct thing. But Hannes seems to have more strong opinion. then, I'm tend to drop this one. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>