On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 06:03:10PM +1200, Barry Song wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:16 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +
> > +static int isolate_folios(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, int swappiness,
> > + int *type_scanned, struct list_head *list)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + int type;
> > + int scanned;
> > + int tier = -1;
> > + DEFINE_MIN_SEQ(lruvec);
> > +
> > + VM_BUG_ON(!seq_is_valid(lruvec));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Try to make the obvious choice first. When anon and file are both
> > + * available from the same generation, interpret swappiness 1 as file
> > + * first and 200 as anon first.
> > + */
>
> Has this changed the ABI of swapiness?
No.
> or it is only something
> meaningful for the internal code?
This is how swappiness is interpreted.
> if so, can we rename it to
> something else? otherwise, it is quite confusing.
Feel free to suggest something.
> it seems 1 is set internally as a magic number here:
> +static void lru_gen_shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct
> scan_control *sc)
> +{
> + ...
> + else if (!cgroup_reclaim(sc) && get_swappiness(lruvec, sc))
> + swappiness = 1;
> + else
> + swappiness = 0;
> + }
> obviously this swappiness is neither /proc/sys/vm/swappiness nor
> /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/<group>/>memory.swappiness, right?
Right.
> > @@ -3928,6 +4726,11 @@ static void age_active_anon(struct pglist_data *pgdat,
> > struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > struct lruvec *lruvec;
> >
> > + if (lru_gen_enabled()) {
> > + lru_gen_age_node(pgdat, sc);
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> is it really a good place for lru_gen_age_node() since the function
> is named age_active_anon()
> but here you are doing aging for both anon and file pages?
Yes.
> obviously
> lru_gen_age_node() is not
> doing "age active anon".
We can rename it if you have something in mind.
