[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200630194755.61f56a55d46222f8d0c84bdd@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:47:55 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
ben.widawsky@...el.com, alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com,
dwagner@...e.de, tobin@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: restore zone_reclaim_mode ABI
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:37:37 -0700 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/20 4:30 PM, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> The only way I can plausibly think of "cleaning up" the RECLAIM_ZONE bit
> >> would be to raise our confidence that it is truly unused. That takes
> >> time, and probably a warning if we see it being set. If we don't run
> >> into anybody setting it or depending on it being set in a few years, we
> >> can remove it.
> > So adding the old bit back for compatibility looks good, thanks.
> >
> > Then we have to be very careful when adding and reviewing new
> > interface introducing, should not leave one which might be used
> > in the future.
> >
> > In fact, RECLAIM_ZONE is not completely useless. At least, when the old
> > bit 0 is set, it may enter into node_reclaim() in get_page_from_freelist(),
> > that makes it like a switch.
> >
> > get_page_from_freelist {
> >
> > ...
> > if (node_reclaim_mode == 0 ||
> > !zone_allows_reclaim(ac->preferred_zoneref->zone, zone))
> > continue;
> > ...
> > }
>
> Oh, that's a very good point. There are a couple of those around. Let
> me circle back and update the documentation and the variable name. I'll
> send out another version.
Was the omission of cc:stable deliberate?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists