[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28c262360902120511kb3a90e4r929eebbbceae26e8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:11:04 +0900
From: MinChan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] shrink_all_memory() use sc.nr_reclaimed
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:33:10PM +0900, MinChan Kim wrote:
>>
>> Impact: cleanup
>>
>> Commit a79311c14eae4bb946a97af25f3e1b17d625985d "vmscan: bail out of
>> direct reclaim after swap_cluster_max pages" moved the nr_reclaimed
>> counter into the scan control to accumulate the number of all
>> reclaimed pages in a reclaim invocation.
>>
>> The shrink_all_memory() can use the same mechanism. it increases code
>> consistency and readability.
>>
>> It's based on mmtom 2009-02-11-17-15.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: MinChan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> mm/vmscan.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>> 1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index ae4202b..caa2de5 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -2055,16 +2055,15 @@ unsigned long global_lru_pages(void)
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
>> /*
>> * Helper function for shrink_all_memory(). Tries to reclaim 'nr_pages' pages
>> - * from LRU lists system-wide, for given pass and priority, and returns the
>> - * number of reclaimed pages
>> + * from LRU lists system-wide, for given pass and priority.
>> *
>> * For pass > 3 we also try to shrink the LRU lists that contain a few pages
>> */
>> -static unsigned long shrink_all_zones(unsigned long nr_pages, int prio,
>> +static void shrink_all_zones(unsigned long nr_pages, int prio,
>> int pass, struct scan_control *sc)
>> {
>> struct zone *zone;
>> - unsigned long ret = 0;
>> + unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
>
> Why this extra variable? You could use sc->nr_reclaimed throughout,
> like you do in shrink_all_memory().
It's just for matching shrink_zone style in order to code consistency.
But, I have no objection to remove extra variable.
>
>> for_each_populated_zone(zone) {
>> enum lru_list l;
>> @@ -2087,14 +2086,16 @@ static unsigned long shrink_all_zones(unsigned long nr_pages, int prio,
>>
>> zone->lru[l].nr_scan = 0;
>> nr_to_scan = min(nr_pages, lru_pages);
>> - ret += shrink_list(l, nr_to_scan, zone,
>> + nr_reclaimed += shrink_list(l, nr_to_scan, zone,
>> sc, prio);
>> - if (ret >= nr_pages)
>> - return ret;
>> + if (nr_reclaimed >= nr_pages) {
>> + sc->nr_reclaimed = nr_reclaimed;
>> + return;
>> + }
>> }
>> }
>> }
>> - return ret;
>> + sc->nr_reclaimed = nr_reclaimed;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -2126,13 +2127,15 @@ unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_pages)
>> /* If slab caches are huge, it's better to hit them first */
>> while (nr_slab >= lru_pages) {
>> reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
>> - shrink_slab(nr_pages, sc.gfp_mask, lru_pages);
>> + shrink_slab(sc.swap_cluster_max, sc.gfp_mask, lru_pages);
>> if (!reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab)
>> break;
>>
>> - ret += reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab;
>> - if (ret >= nr_pages)
>> + sc.nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab;
>> + if (sc.nr_reclaimed >= sc.swap_cluster_max) {
>> + ret = sc.nr_reclaimed;
>
> Why do you still maintain `ret'? Just return sc.nr_reclaimed at the
> end and get rid of ret alltogether.
It' just for emphasis on return variable.
Of course, I have no objection to remove 'ret'. ;
> Using sc.swap_cluster_max here seems to be a good idea at first sight
> but really it is not.
>
> Usually, swap_cluster_max is smaller than the reclaim goal and reclaim
> code uses it combined with other conditions to bail out BEFORE the
> original reclaim goal is met. But sc.swap_cluster_max IS our original
> reclaim goal, so it means something different.
>
> It's btw buggy, we never decrease swap_cluster_max which leads to
> funky overreclaim in shrink_inactive_list(). I will send the original
> patch from Kosaki-san for using sc->nr_reclaimed and a patch for the
> overreclaim problem.
>
> Hannes
>
--
Kinds regards,
MinChan Kim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists