From: Leon Ma <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:22:38 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] LMK: Optimize lowmem_shrink.
By comparing with selected_oom_score_adj instead of min_score_adj,
we may do less calculation.
Signed-off-by: Leon Ma <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c | 12 ++++--------
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
index f6c05c9..cb944c5 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ static int lowmem_shrink(struct shrinker *s, struct
shrink_control *sc)
return 0;
}
oom_score_adj = p->signal->oom_score_adj;
- if (oom_score_adj < min_score_adj) {
+ if (oom_score_adj < selected_oom_score_adj) {
task_unlock(p);
continue;
}
@@ -134,13 +134,9 @@ static int lowmem_shrink(struct shrinker *s, struct
shrink_control *sc)
task_unlock(p);
if (tasksize <= 0)
continue;
- if (selected) {
- if (oom_score_adj < selected_oom_score_adj)
- continue;
- if (oom_score_adj == selected_oom_score_adj &&
- tasksize <= selected_tasksize)
- continue;
- }
+ if (selected && oom_score_adj == selected_oom_score_adj &&
+ tasksize <= selected_tasksize)
+ continue;
selected = p;
selected_tasksize = tasksize;
selected_oom_score_adj = oom_score_adj;
--
1.7.4.1
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Leon Ma <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Leon Ma <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:22:38 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] LMK: Optimize lowmem_shrink.
>
> By comparing with selected_oom_score_adj instead of min_score_adj,
> we may do less calculation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Ma <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c | 12 ++++--------
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> index f6c05c9..cb944c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ static int lowmem_shrink(struct shrinker *s, struct
> shrink_control *sc)
> return 0;
> }
> oom_score_adj = p->signal->oom_score_adj;
> - if (oom_score_adj < min_score_adj) {
> + if (oom_score_adj < selected_oom_score_adj) {
This needs to be oom_score_adj <= selected_oom_score_adj.
> task_unlock(p);
> continue;
> }
> @@ -134,13 +134,9 @@ static int lowmem_shrink(struct shrinker *s, struct
> shrink_control *sc)
> task_unlock(p);
> if (tasksize <= 0)
> continue;
> - if (selected) {
> - if (oom_score_adj < selected_oom_score_adj)
> - continue;
> - if (oom_score_adj == selected_oom_score_adj &&
> - tasksize <= selected_tasksize)
> - continue;
> - }
> + if (selected && oom_score_adj == selected_oom_score_adj &&
> + tasksize <= selected_tasksize)
> + continue;
> selected = p;
> selected_tasksize = tasksize;
> selected_oom_score_adj = oom_score_adj;
> --
> 1.7.4.1
>
>
>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Colin Cross <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Leon Ma <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From: Leon Ma <[email protected]>
>> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:22:38 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] LMK: Optimize lowmem_shrink.
>>
>> By comparing with selected_oom_score_adj instead of min_score_adj,
>> we may do less calculation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leon Ma <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c | 12 ++++--------
>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
>> b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
>> index f6c05c9..cb944c5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
>> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ static int lowmem_shrink(struct shrinker *s, struct
>> shrink_control *sc)
>> return 0;
>> }
>> oom_score_adj = p->signal->oom_score_adj;
>> - if (oom_score_adj < min_score_adj) {
>> + if (oom_score_adj < selected_oom_score_adj) {
>
> This needs to be oom_score_adj <= selected_oom_score_adj.
Sorry, got the logic inverted, yours is correct.
>> task_unlock(p);
>> continue;
>> }
>> @@ -134,13 +134,9 @@ static int lowmem_shrink(struct shrinker *s, struct
>> shrink_control *sc)
>> task_unlock(p);
>> if (tasksize <= 0)
>> continue;
>> - if (selected) {
>> - if (oom_score_adj < selected_oom_score_adj)
>> - continue;
>> - if (oom_score_adj == selected_oom_score_adj &&
>> - tasksize <= selected_tasksize)
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> + if (selected && oom_score_adj == selected_oom_score_adj &&
>> + tasksize <= selected_tasksize)
>> + continue;
>> selected = p;
>> selected_tasksize = tasksize;
>> selected_oom_score_adj = oom_score_adj;
>> --
>> 1.7.4.1
>>
>>
>>
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 09:16:33AM +0800, Leon Ma wrote:
> From: Leon Ma <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:22:38 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] LMK: Optimize lowmem_shrink.
>
> By comparing with selected_oom_score_adj instead of min_score_adj,
> we may do less calculation.
>
The patch is line wrapped and doesn't apply.
Read Documentation/email-clients.txt. Send it to yourself first.
Save the whole email as raw text (including headers and everything).
cat email.txt | git am.
When that works, then resend.
regards,
dan carpenter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:30 PM
> To: Ma, Xindong
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] LMK: Optimize lowmem_shrink
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 09:16:33AM +0800, Leon Ma wrote:
> > From: Leon Ma <[email protected]>
> > Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:22:38 +0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] LMK: Optimize lowmem_shrink.
> >
> > By comparing with selected_oom_score_adj instead of min_score_adj, we
> > may do less calculation.
> >
>
> The patch is line wrapped and doesn't apply.
> Read Documentation/email-clients.txt. Send it to yourself first.
> Save the whole email as raw text (including headers and everything).
> cat email.txt | git am.
> When that works, then resend.
Sorry for the trouble. I forgot to click "Prefomatted" in Evolution. I've resend the patch
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/20/754
Please have a review.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter