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]

Date:	Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:04:49 +0900
From:	"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
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()

>> 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.

Yes, I'm wrong.
Will fix.




>> +static inline int
>> +mem_cgroup_inactive_anon_is_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct zone *zone)
>> +{
>> +       return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>
> An extra newline here.

Will fix.


===================================================================
>> --- 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.

Ah sorry.
the type of zone->inactive_ratio is unsigned int.

Then, I'd like to change it to unsigned int.
because difference of the global reclaim easily cause silly mistake and bug.


>> +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.

Yes, Of cource.
Thanks.



>>  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.

Will fix.


>> @@ -1423,6 +1458,7 @@ int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct
>>                if (curusage >= oldusage)
>>                        retry_count--;
>>        }
>> +
>>        return ret;
>>  }
>
> There's some diff noise here.

ditto.
thanks.
--
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/