Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758923Ab1ELX5N (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2011 19:57:13 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:56076 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758709Ab1ELX5L (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2011 19:57:11 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:50:27 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Daisuke Nishimura , Balbir Singh , Ying Han , Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [rfc patch 2/6] vmscan: make distinction between memcg reclaim and LRU list selection Message-Id: <20110513085027.25b25a47.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <1305212038-15445-3-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> References: <1305212038-15445-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <1305212038-15445-3-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2232 Lines: 74 On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:53:54 +0200 Johannes Weiner wrote: > The reclaim code has a single predicate for whether it currently > reclaims on behalf of a memory cgroup, as well as whether it is > reclaiming from the global LRU list or a memory cgroup LRU list. > > Up to now, both cases always coincide, but subsequent patches will > change things such that global reclaim will scan memory cgroup lists. > > This patch adds a new predicate that tells global reclaim from memory > cgroup reclaim, and then changes all callsites that are actually about > global reclaim heuristics rather than strict LRU list selection. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner Hmm, isn't it better to merge this to patches where the meaning of new variable gets clearer ? > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > 1 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index f6b435c..ceeb2a5 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -104,8 +104,12 @@ struct scan_control { > */ > reclaim_mode_t reclaim_mode; > > - /* Which cgroup do we reclaim from */ > - struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup; > + /* > + * The memory cgroup we reclaim on behalf of, and the one we > + * are currently reclaiming from. > + */ > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg; > + struct mem_cgroup *current_memcg; > I wonder if you avoid renaming exisiting one, the patch will be clearer... > /* > * Nodemask of nodes allowed by the caller. If NULL, all nodes > @@ -154,16 +158,24 @@ static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list); > static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem); > > #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR > -#define scanning_global_lru(sc) (!(sc)->mem_cgroup) > +static bool global_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc) > +{ > + return !sc->memcg; > +} > +static bool scanning_global_lru(struct scan_control *sc) > +{ > + return !sc->current_memcg; > +} Could you add comments ? Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/