On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 4:05 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 11:33:16PM -0800, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > +++ b/mm/workingset.c
> > @@ -244,6 +244,30 @@ static void *lru_gen_eviction(struct folio *folio)
> > return pack_shadow(mem_cgroup_id(memcg), pgdat, token, refs);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Test if the folio is recently evicted.
> > + *
> > + * As a side effect, also populates the references with
> > + * values unpacked from the shadow of the evicted folio.
> > + */
>
> I find this comment hard to understand. First it talks about "the
> folio", but it doesn't pass a folio. Then it talks about "the
> references", but I don't have any idea what those are either.
>
> I think what you mean is,
>
> * Test if the shadow entry is for a folio which was recently evicted.
> * Fills in @memcgid, @pgdat, @token and @workingset with values
> * extracted from the shadow entry.
I'll fix this comment in the next version. Thanks for the suggestion!
>
> > +static bool lru_gen_test_recent(void *shadow, bool file, int *memcgid,
> > + struct pglist_data **pgdat, unsigned long *token, bool *workingset)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *eviction_memcg;
> > + struct lruvec *lruvec;
> > + struct lru_gen_struct *lrugen;
> > + unsigned long min_seq;
> > +
> > + unpack_shadow(shadow, memcgid, pgdat, token, workingset);
> > + eviction_memcg = mem_cgroup_from_id(*memcgid);
> > +
> > + lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(eviction_memcg, *pgdat);
> > + lrugen = &lruvec->lrugen;
> > +
> > + min_seq = READ_ONCE(lrugen->min_seq[file]);
> > + return (*token >> LRU_REFS_WIDTH) == (min_seq & (EVICTION_MASK >> LRU_REFS_WIDTH));
> > +}
>
> [...]
>
> > +/*
> > + * Test if the folio is recently evicted by checking if
> > + * refault distance of shadow exceeds workingset size.
> > *
> > - * Calculates and evaluates the refault distance of the previously
> > - * evicted folio in the context of the node and the memcg whose memory
> > - * pressure caused the eviction.
> > + * As a side effect, populate workingset with the value
> > + * unpacked from shadow.
> > */
>
> 1. Shouldn't this be kernel-doc?
Hmm good point...
> 2. Again, don't use the term "side effect" here. It's just one of
> the things that the function _does_.
>
I'll fix this! Thanks for pointing it out.
