[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8rA4C6qnT5InHGc@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:27:12 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
willy@...radead.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] workingset: refactor LRU refault to expose
refault recency check
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:34:18AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:59:57AM -0800, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > + int memcgid;
> > + struct pglist_data *pgdat;
> > + unsigned long token;
> > +
> > + unpack_shadow(shadow, &memcgid, &pgdat, &token, workingset);
> > + eviction_memcg = mem_cgroup_from_id(memcgid);
> > +
> > + lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(eviction_memcg, pgdat);
> > + lrugen = &lruvec->lrugen;
> > +
> > + min_seq = READ_ONCE(lrugen->min_seq[file]);
> > + return !((token >> LRU_REFS_WIDTH) != (min_seq & (EVICTION_MASK >> LRU_REFS_WIDTH)));
>
> I think this might be more readable without the double negative.
>
> Also it looks like this logic is pulled from lru_gen_refault(). Any
> reason the caller isn't refactored to use this helper, similar to how
> workingset_refault() is modified? It seems like a potential landmine to
> duplicate the logic here for cachestat purposes and somewhere else for
> actual workingset management.
The initial version was refactored. Yu explicitly requested it be
duplicated [1] to cut down on some boiler plate.
I have to agree with Brian on this one, though. The factored version
is better for maintenance than duplicating the core logic here. Even
if it ends up a bit more boiler plate - it's harder to screw that up,
and easier to catch at compile time, than the duplicates diverging.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAOUHufZKTqoD2rFwrX9-eCknBmeWqP88rZ7X7A_5KHHbGBUP=A@mail.gmail.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists