Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-15849-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:19:59 -0500
From: Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
	Yue Zhao <findns94@gmail.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] mm: add swapiness= arg to memory.reclaim
Message-ID: <ZZWlT5wmDaMceSlQ@dschatzberg-fedora-PC0Y6AEN>
References: <20240103164841.2800183-1-schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>
 <20240103164841.2800183-3-schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>
 <CAOUHufZ-hTwdiy7eYgJWo=CHyPbdxTX60hxjPmwa9Ox6FXMYQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOUHufZ-hTwdiy7eYgJWo=CHyPbdxTX60hxjPmwa9Ox6FXMYQQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:19:40AM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index d91963e2d47f..394e0dd46b2e 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -92,6 +92,11 @@ struct scan_control {
> >         unsigned long   anon_cost;
> >         unsigned long   file_cost;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > +       /* Swappiness value for proactive reclaim. Always use sc_swappiness()! */
> > +       int *proactive_swappiness;
> > +#endif
> 
> Why is proactive_swappiness still a pointer? The whole point of the
> previous conversation is that sc->proactive can tell whether
> sc->swappiness is valid or not, and that's less awkward than using a
> pointer.

It's the same reason as before - zero initialization ensures that the
pointer is NULL which tells us if it's valid or not. Proactive reclaim
might not set swappiness and you need to distinguish swappiness of 0
and not-set. See this discussion with Michal:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/ZZUizpTWOt3gNeqR@tiehlicka/

> Also why the #ifdef here? I don't see the point for a small stack
> variable. Otherwise wouldn't we want to do this for sc->proactive as
> well?

This was Michal's request and it feels similar to your rationale for
naming it proactive_swappiness - it's just restricting the interface
down to the only use-cases. I'd be fine with doing the same in
sc->proactive as a subsequent patch.

See https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/ZZUhBoTNgL3AUK3f@tiehlicka/