Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2023 23:08:20 -0500
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Ignore non-LRU-based reclaim in memcg reclaim
Message-ID: <20230309040820.GC476158@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20230228085002.2592473-1-yosryahmed@google.com>
 <20230308160056.GA414058@cmpxchg.org>
 <CAJD7tka=6b-U3m0FdMoP=9nC8sYuJ9thghb9muqN5hQ5ZMrDag@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230308201629.GB476158@cmpxchg.org>
 <CAJD7tkbDN2LUG_EZHV8VZd3M4-wtY9TCO5uS2c5qvqEWpoMvoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230308212529.GL360264@dread.disaster.area>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230308212529.GL360264@dread.disaster.area>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 08:25:29AM +1100, Dave Chinner 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....

My first preference would still be to just leave it. IMO that one line
saved in a small handful of places isn't worth the indirection,
obscuring the `current' deref etc.

But mm_account_reclaimed_pages() works for me if you really want to
enapsulate it.