[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a0904190159t2898edfal858ba12d3460c4e5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:59:54 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for mmotm 0414] vmscan,memcg: reintroduce sc->may_swap
Hi
Hi
>> @@ -1724,6 +1728,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pag
>> struct scan_control sc = {
>> .may_writepage = !laptop_mode,
>> .may_unmap = 1,
>> + .may_swap = 1,
>> .swap_cluster_max = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
>> .swappiness = swappiness,
>> .order = 0,
>> @@ -1734,7 +1739,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pag
>> struct zonelist *zonelist;
>>
>> if (noswap)
>> - sc.may_unmap = 0;
>> + sc.may_swap = 0;
>
> Can this be directly initialized?
>
> struct scan_control sc = {
> ...
> .may_swap = !noswap,
> ...
> };
your proposal is better coding style. but I also prefer condig style
consistency.
I think we should change may_unmap and may_swap at the same time.
Thus, I'd like to does it by another patch.
>> @@ -2120,6 +2126,7 @@ unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned
>> struct scan_control sc = {
>> .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL,
>> .may_unmap = 0,
>> + .may_swap = 1,
>
> shrink_all_memory() is not a user of shrink_zone() -> get_scan_ratio()
> and therefor not affected by this flag. I think it's better not to
> set it here (just like sc->swappiness).
Will fix. thanks.
>> .may_writepage = 1,
>> .isolate_pages = isolate_pages_global,
>> };
>> @@ -2304,6 +2311,7 @@ static int __zone_reclaim(struct zone *z
>> struct scan_control sc = {
>> .may_writepage = !!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_WRITE),
>> .may_unmap = !!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_SWAP),
>> + .may_swap = 1,
>
> Shouldn't this be set to !!(zone_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_SWAP) as well?
>
> With set to 1, zone_reclaim() will also reclaim unmapped swap cache
> pages (without swapping) and it might be desirable to do that.
In general, you are right.
but another patch is better. this patch should only change memcg behavior.
I plan to change this. I'm making some zone reclaim test case, after it,
I can post the patch.
> But
> then may_swap is a confusing name. may_anon? may_scan_anon?
> scan_anon?
Why?
may_swap = 0 mean no swap-out directly. not anon only.
it's because shmem page stay in LRU_ANON.
--
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