On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:12:55PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:27:12PM -0400, Joel Savitz wrote:
> > In addition, this patch replaces the magic number bounds with symbolic
> > constants to clarify the logic.
>
> Why do people think this kind of thing makes the code easier to read?
> It actually makes it harder. Unless the constants are used in more
> than one place, just leave the numbers where they are.
>
> > @@ -7852,6 +7852,9 @@ void setup_per_zone_wmarks(void)
> > * 8192MB: 11584k
> > * 16384MB: 16384k
> > */
> > +static const int MIN_FREE_KBYTES_LOWER_BOUND = 1 << 7;
> > +static const int MIN_FREE_KBYTES_UPPER_BOUND = 1 << 18;
> > +
I think these constants would look better if declared as an enum.
> > int __meminit init_per_zone_wmark_min(void)
> > {
> > unsigned long lowmem_kbytes;
> > @@ -7862,10 +7865,10 @@ int __meminit init_per_zone_wmark_min(void)
> >
> > if (new_min_free_kbytes > user_min_free_kbytes) {
> > min_free_kbytes = new_min_free_kbytes;
> > - if (min_free_kbytes < 128)
> > - min_free_kbytes = 128;
> > - if (min_free_kbytes > 262144)
> > - min_free_kbytes = 262144;
> > + if (min_free_kbytes < MIN_FREE_KBYTES_LOWER_BOUND)
> > + min_free_kbytes = MIN_FREE_KBYTES_LOWER_BOUND;
> > + if (min_free_kbytes > MIN_FREE_KBYTES_UPPER_BOUND)
> > + min_free_kbytes = MIN_FREE_KBYTES_UPPER_BOUND;
>
> The only thing I'd consider changing there is replacing 262144 with 256
> * 1024. 1 << 18 is not clearer!
>
