linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160609133331.GB11719@cmpxchg.org>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:33:31 -0400
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:18:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 08-06-16 12:16:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and move from two
> > > > separate value ratios for the LRU lists to a relative LRU cost metric
> > > > with a shared denominator.
> > > 
> > > I just do not like the too generic `number'. I guess cost or price would
> > > fit better and look better in the code as well. Up you though...
> > 
> > Yeah, I picked it as a pair, numerator and denominator. But as Minchan
> > points out, denom is superfluous in the final version of the patch, so
> > I'm going to remove it and give the numerators better names.
> > 
> > anon_cost and file_cost?
> 
> Yes that is much more descriptive and easier to grep for. I didn't
> propose that because I thought you would want to preserve the array
> definition for an easier code to update them.

It'll be slightly more verbose, but that's probably a good thing.
Especially for readability in get_scan_count().