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/
