[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150723122827.GB2660@techsingularity.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:28:28 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Pintu Kumar <pintu.k@...sung.com>,
Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>, Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] mm, page_alloc: Remove unnecessary recalculations
for dirty zone balancing
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:08:42PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> >
> > File-backed pages that will be immediately dirtied are balanced between
> > zones but it's unnecessarily expensive. Move consider_zone_balanced into
> > the alloc_context instead of checking bitmaps multiple times.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
>
Thanks.
> consider_zone_dirty eliminates zones over their dirty limits and
> zone_dirty_ok() returns true if zones are under their dirty limits, so the
> naming of both are a little strange. You might consider changing them
> while you're here.
Yeah, that seems sensible. I named the struct field spread_dirty_page so
the relevant check now looks like
if (ac->spread_dirty_page && !zone_dirty_ok(zone))
Alternative suggestions welcome but I think this is more meaningful than
consider_zone_dirty was.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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