[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHS8izOn3Kr8vqxHYxEoGVoCXKmysRKNsvXpJ2EumxDU6JfSDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 14:10:37 -0800
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, weixugc@...gle.com,
gthelen@...gle.com, fvdl@...gle.com, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] mm: Add nodes= arg to memory.reclaim
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 1:32 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 06:03:27PM -0800, Mina Almasry wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 7b8e8e43806b..23fc5b523764 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -6735,7 +6735,8 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_shrink_node(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > unsigned long nr_pages,
> > gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > - unsigned int reclaim_options)
> > + unsigned int reclaim_options,
> > + nodemask_t nodemask)
>
> Can you please make this parameter a nodemask_t* and pass NULL instead
> of NODE_MASK_ALL?
Thank you very much for the review. I sure can in the next version. To
be honest I thought about that and made the parameter nodemask_t
because I thought the call sites would be more readable. I.e. this:
try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, 1, GFP_KERNEL,
MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP, NODE_MASK_ALL);
Would be more readable than this:
try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, 1, GFP_KERNEL,
MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP, NULL);
But the tradeoff is that the callers need include/linux/nodemask.h.
But yes I can fix in the next version.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists