[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160224102149.GS2854@techsingularity.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:21:49 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/27] mm, vmscan: Begin reclaiming pages on a per-node
basis
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:57:22AM -0800, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 03:04:29PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > @@ -2428,10 +2448,11 @@ static bool shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
> > reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
> > scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
> >
> > + sc->reclaim_idx = reclaim_idx;
> > shrink_zone_memcg(zone, memcg, sc, &lru_pages);
> > zone_lru_pages += lru_pages;
>
> The setting of sc->reclaim_idx is unexpected here. Why not set it in
> the caller and eliminate the reclaim_idx parameter?
>
Initially because it was easier to develop the patch for but it's good
either way. I updated this patch and handled the conflicts. It's now set
in the callers.
Thanks.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists