[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkbu97JWOEvRJDYBKzy5qOJ8LYK6ZXBJSDhUw0+8br_Dqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 13:31:34 -0800
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Ignore non-LRU-based reclaim in memcg reclaim
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 1:25 PM Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 12:24:08PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > I tried to come up with something better, but wasn't happy with any of
> > > the options, either. So I defaulted to just leaving it alone :-)
> > >
> > > It's part of the shrinker API and the name hasn't changed since the
> > > initial git import of the kernel tree. It should be fine, churn-wise.
> >
> > Last attempt, just update_reclaim_state() (corresponding to
> > flush_reclaim_state() below). It doesn't tell a story, but neither
> > does incrementing a counter in current->reclaim_state. If that doesn't
> > make you happy I'll give up now and leave it as-is :)
>
> This is used in different subsystem shrinkers outside mm/, so the
> name needs to be correctly namespaced. Please prefix it with the
> subsystem the function belongs to, at minimum.
>
> mm_account_reclaimed_pages() is what is actually being done here.
> It is self describing and leaves behind no ambiguity as to what is
> being accounted and why, nor which subsystem the accounting belongs
> to.
>
> It doesn't matter what the internal mm/vmscan structures are called,
> all we care about is telling the mm infrastructure how many extra
> pages were freed by the shrinker....
mm_account_reclaimed_pages() sounds good to me. We can also do
something more specific if Johannes has any ideas. I do not have a
strong opinion here at all, I just prefer having a helper to leaving
it open-coded.
Thanks!
>
> -Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists