Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932207AbcJNOpL (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:45:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:33939 "EHLO mail-pf0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752590AbcJNOpC (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:45:02 -0400 From: Minchan Kim X-Google-Original-From: Minchan Kim Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 23:44:48 +0900 To: Michal Hocko Cc: Minchan Kim , Ming Ling , akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, rientjes@google.com, hughd@google.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, riel@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de, aquini@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, orson.zhai@spreadtrum.com, geng.ren@spreadtrum.com, chunyan.zhang@spreadtrum.com, zhizhou.tian@spreadtrum.com, yuming.han@spreadtrum.com, xiajing@spreadst.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: exclude isolated non-lru pages from NR_ISOLATED_ANON or NR_ISOLATED_FILE. Message-ID: <20161014144448.GA2899@blaptop> References: <1476340749-13281-1-git-send-email-ming.ling@spreadtrum.com> <20161013080936.GG21678@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161014083219.GA20260@spreadtrum.com> <20161014113044.GB6063@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161014134604.GA2179@blaptop> <20161014135334.GF6063@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161014135334.GF6063@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1620 Lines: 38 On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 03:53:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 14-10-16 22:46:04, Minchan Kim wrote: > [...] > > > > > Why don't you simply mimic what shrink_inactive_list does? Aka count the > > > > > number of isolated pages and then account them when appropriate? > > > > > > > > > I think i am correcting clearly wrong part. So, there is no need to > > > > describe it too detailed. It's a misunderstanding, and i will add > > > > more comments as you suggest. > > > > > > OK, so could you explain why you prefer to relyon __PageMovable rather > > > than do a trivial counting during the isolation? > > > > I don't get it. Could you elaborate it a bit more? > > It is really simple. You can count the number of file and anonymous > pages while they are isolated and then account them to NR_ISOLATED_* > later. Basically the same thing we do during the reclaim. We absolutely > do not have to rely on __PageMovable and make this code more complex > than necessary. I don't understand your point. isolate_migratepages_block can isolate any movable pages, for instance, anon, file and non-lru and they are isolated into cc->migratepges. Then, acct_isolated accounts them to NR_ISOLATED_*. Isn't it same with the one you suggested? The problem is we should identify which pages is non-lru movable first. If it's not non-lru, it means the page is either anon or file so we can account them. That's exactly waht Ming Ling did. Sorry if I didn't get your point. Maybe, it would be better to give pseudo code out of your mind for better understanding rather than several ping-ping with vague words. Thanks.