On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 02:13:20PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 2:10 PM T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -6965,6 +6965,9 @@ static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
> > while (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim) {
> > unsigned long reclaimed;
> >
> > + /* Will converge on zero, but reclaim enforces a minimum */
> > + unsigned long batch_size = (nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed) / 4;
> > +
> > if (signal_pending(current))
> > return -EINTR;
> >
> > @@ -6977,7 +6980,7 @@ static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
> > lru_add_drain_all();
> >
> > reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
> > - min(nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
> > + batch_size,
> > GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options);
>
> I think the above two lines should now fit into one.
Yeah might as well compact that again. The newline in the declarations
is a bit unusual for this codebase as well, and puts the comment sort
of away from the "reclaim" it refers to. This?
/* Will converge on zero, but reclaim enforces a minimum */
batch_size = (nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed) / 4;
reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, batch_size,
GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options);
But agreed, it's all just nitpickety nickpicking. :)
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
