[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DCBFDB9.10209@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:33:13 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc patch 2/6] vmscan: make distinction between memcg reclaim
and LRU list selection
On 05/12/2011 10:53 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> The reclaim code has a single predicate for whether it currently
> reclaims on behalf of a memory cgroup, as well as whether it is
> reclaiming from the global LRU list or a memory cgroup LRU list.
>
> Up to now, both cases always coincide, but subsequent patches will
> change things such that global reclaim will scan memory cgroup lists.
>
> This patch adds a new predicate that tells global reclaim from memory
> cgroup reclaim, and then changes all callsites that are actually about
> global reclaim heuristics rather than strict LRU list selection.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner<hannes@...xchg.org>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> 1 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index f6b435c..ceeb2a5 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -104,8 +104,12 @@ struct scan_control {
> */
> reclaim_mode_t reclaim_mode;
>
> - /* Which cgroup do we reclaim from */
> - struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup;
> + /*
> + * The memory cgroup we reclaim on behalf of, and the one we
> + * are currently reclaiming from.
> + */
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> + struct mem_cgroup *current_memcg;
I can't say I'm fond of these names. I had to read the
rest of the patch to figure out that the old mem_cgroup
got renamed to current_memcg.
Would it be better to call them my_memcg and reclaim_memcg?
Maybe somebody else has better suggestions...
Other than the naming, no objection.
--
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