On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 6:43 AM Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:57:40AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > +static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
> > + size_t nbytes, loff_t off)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(of_css(of));
> > + unsigned int nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
> > + unsigned long nr_to_reclaim, nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + buf = strstrip(buf);
> > + err = page_counter_memparse(buf, "", &nr_to_reclaim);
>
> Is there a reason not to support "max"? Empty string seems odd to me
> here.
We can certainly support "max" to reclaim as much as we can with
MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES, if there are no objections from the maintainers.
>
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + while (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim) {
> > + unsigned long reclaimed;
> > +
> > + if (signal_pending(current))
> > + break;
>
> I think this should be `return -EINTR;`
Yes this makes more sense. I think this was modeled after the if block
in memory_high_write(), but maybe it makes sense there to just report
success as the new high limit was set anyway.
Will change it in the next version.
>
> > +
> > + reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
> > + nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed,
> > + GFP_KERNEL, true);
> > +
> > + if (!reclaimed && !nr_retries--)
> > + break;
>
> Here you can just `return -EAGAIN;`
Will do.
>
> > +
> > + nr_reclaimed += reclaimed;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim ? -EAGAIN : nbytes;
>
> Then this can just be `return nbytes;`
Will do.
>
> I'm very much in favor of this new interface. Thanks for working on
> it!
Thanks so much for reviewing it!
