On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 09:46:38AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> Both memcg_shrinker_map_size and shrinker_nr_max is maintained, but actually the
> map size can be calculated via shrinker_nr_max, so it seems unnecessary to keep both.
> Remove memcg_shrinker_map_size since shrinker_nr_max is also used by iterating the
> bit map.
>
> Acked-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <[email protected]>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index e4ddaaaeffe2..641077b09e5d 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -185,8 +185,10 @@ static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
> static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> +static int shrinker_nr_max;
>
> -static int memcg_shrinker_map_size;
> +#define NR_MAX_TO_SHR_MAP_SIZE(nr_max) \
> + (DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_max, BITS_PER_LONG) * sizeof(unsigned long))
How about something like this?
static inline int shrinker_map_size(int nr_items)
{
return DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_items, BITS_PER_LONG) * sizeof(unsigned long);
}
I think it look less cryptic.
The rest of the patch looks good to me.
Thanks!
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:43 PM Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 09:46:38AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> > Both memcg_shrinker_map_size and shrinker_nr_max is maintained, but actually the
> > map size can be calculated via shrinker_nr_max, so it seems unnecessary to keep both.
> > Remove memcg_shrinker_map_size since shrinker_nr_max is also used by iterating the
> > bit map.
> >
> > Acked-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index e4ddaaaeffe2..641077b09e5d 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -185,8 +185,10 @@ static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
> > static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > +static int shrinker_nr_max;
> >
> > -static int memcg_shrinker_map_size;
> > +#define NR_MAX_TO_SHR_MAP_SIZE(nr_max) \
> > + (DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_max, BITS_PER_LONG) * sizeof(unsigned long))
>
> How about something like this?
>
> static inline int shrinker_map_size(int nr_items)
> {
> return DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_items, BITS_PER_LONG) * sizeof(unsigned long);
> }
>
> I think it look less cryptic.
OK, I don't have a strong opinion for either one (inline function or
macro). If no one objects this I could do it in the new version.
>
> The rest of the patch looks good to me.
>
> Thanks!
On 2/9/21 9:43 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 09:46:38AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>> Both memcg_shrinker_map_size and shrinker_nr_max is maintained, but actually the
>> map size can be calculated via shrinker_nr_max, so it seems unnecessary to keep both.
>> Remove memcg_shrinker_map_size since shrinker_nr_max is also used by iterating the
>> bit map.
>>
>> Acked-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> mm/vmscan.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index e4ddaaaeffe2..641077b09e5d 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -185,8 +185,10 @@ static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
>> static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
>> +static int shrinker_nr_max;
>>
>> -static int memcg_shrinker_map_size;
>> +#define NR_MAX_TO_SHR_MAP_SIZE(nr_max) \
>> + (DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_max, BITS_PER_LONG) * sizeof(unsigned long))
>
> How about something like this?
>
> static inline int shrinker_map_size(int nr_items)
> {
> return DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_items, BITS_PER_LONG) * sizeof(unsigned long);
> }
>
> I think it look less cryptic.
Yeah that looks nicer so I'm fine with that potential change.
> The rest of the patch looks good to me.
>
> Thanks!
>