linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/09] memcg: make inactive_anon_is

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <84144f020811300450m7f450a1eue9ee820db2022ca5@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:50:24 +0200
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/09] memcg: make inactive_anon_is_low()

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> make inactive_anon_is_low for memcgroup.
> it improve active_anon vs inactive_anon ratio balancing.

The subject line of this patch seems to be truncated and the changelog
seems bit terse. While the change may be obvious to memcg developers,
it's not for the casual reader.

>
>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memcontrol.h |   10 ++++++++++
>  mm/memcontrol.c            |   38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  mm/vmscan.c                |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  3 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> Index: b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> ===================================================================
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -90,6 +90,8 @@ extern void mem_cgroup_record_reclaim_pr
>
>  extern long mem_cgroup_calc_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct zone *zone,
>                                        int priority, enum lru_list lru);
> +int mem_cgroup_inactive_anon_is_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> +                                   struct zone *zone);
>
>  #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP
>  extern int do_swap_account;
> @@ -241,6 +243,14 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_oom_called
>  {
>        return false;
>  }
> +
> +static inline int
> +mem_cgroup_inactive_anon_is_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct zone *zone)
> +{
> +       return 1;
> +}
> +
> +

An extra newline here.

>  #endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_CONT */
>
>  #endif /* _LINUX_MEMCONTROL_H */
> Index: b/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -156,6 +156,9 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
>        unsigned long   last_oom_jiffies;
>        int             obsolete;
>        atomic_t        refcnt;
> +
> +       int inactive_ratio;
> +

Is there a reason why this is not unsigned long? A comment here
explaining what ->inactive_ratio is used for would be nice.

> +static void mem_cgroup_set_inactive_ratio(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> +       unsigned int gb, ratio;
> +
> +       gb = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_LIMIT) >> 30;
> +       ratio = int_sqrt(10 * gb);

You might want to consider adding a comment explaining what the above
calculation is supposed to be doing.

> +       if (!ratio)
> +               ratio = 1;
> +
> +       memcg->inactive_ratio = ratio;
> +
> +}
> +
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(set_limit_mutex);
>
>  static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> @@ -1381,6 +1411,11 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struc
>                                GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, false);
>                if (!progress)                  retry_count--;
>        }
> +
> +       if (!ret)
> +               mem_cgroup_set_inactive_ratio(memcg);
> +
> +

An extra newline here.

>        return ret;
>  }
>
> @@ -1423,6 +1458,7 @@ int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct
>                if (curusage >= oldusage)
>                        retry_count--;
>        }
> +
>        return ret;
>  }

There's some diff noise here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/