[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UdyVKS00UzSGuVL7WASkz5h3MpnWT4VnYPa7Par08XxAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:17:47 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 03/21] mm/compaction: correct the comments of compact_defer_shift
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:59 AM Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> * Compaction is deferred when compaction fails to result in a page
> >> - * allocation success. 1 << compact_defer_limit compactions are skipped up
> >> + * allocation success. compact_defer_shift++, compactions are skipped up
> >> * to a limit of 1 << COMPACT_MAX_DEFER_SHIFT
> >> */
> >> void defer_compaction(struct zone *zone, int order)
> >
> > So this doesn't read right. I wouldn't keep the "++," in the
> > explanation, and if we are going to refer to a limit of "1 <<
> > COMPACT_MAX_DEFER_SHIFT" then maybe this should be left as "1 <<
> > compact_defer_shift".
> >
>
> Thanks for comments! So is the changed patch fine?
> --
>
> From 80ffde4c8e13ba2ad1ad5175dbaef245c2fe49bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 09:47:01 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] mm/compaction: correct the comments of compact_defer_shift
>
> There is no compact_defer_limit. It should be compact_defer_shift in
> use. and add compact_order_failed explanation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> ---
> include/linux/mmzone.h | 1 +
> mm/compaction.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> index f6f884970511..14c668b7e793 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> @@ -512,6 +512,7 @@ struct zone {
> * On compaction failure, 1<<compact_defer_shift compactions
> * are skipped before trying again. The number attempted since
> * last failure is tracked with compact_considered.
> + * compact_order_failed is the minimum compaction failed order.
> */
> unsigned int compact_considered;
> unsigned int compact_defer_shift;
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index 86375605faa9..4950240cd455 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ void __ClearPageMovable(struct page *page)
>
> /*
> * Compaction is deferred when compaction fails to result in a page
> - * allocation success. 1 << compact_defer_limit compactions are skipped up
> + * allocation success. 1 << compact_defer_shift, compactions are skipped up
> * to a limit of 1 << COMPACT_MAX_DEFER_SHIFT
> */
> void defer_compaction(struct zone *zone, int order)
Yes, that looks better to me.
Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists