On 12/28/2016 04:30 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1428,6 +1428,7 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
unsigned long nr_taken = 0;
unsigned long nr_zone_taken[MAX_NR_ZONES] = { 0 };
unsigned long nr_skipped[MAX_NR_ZONES] = { 0, };
+ unsigned long skipped = 0, total_skipped = 0;
unsigned long scan, nr_pages;
LIST_HEAD(pages_skipped);
@@ -1479,14 +1480,13 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
*/
if (!list_empty(&pages_skipped)) {
int zid;
- unsigned long total_skipped = 0;
for (zid = 0; zid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zid++) {
if (!nr_skipped[zid])
continue;
__count_zid_vm_events(PGSCAN_SKIP, zid, nr_skipped[zid]);
- total_skipped += nr_skipped[zid];
+ skipped += nr_skipped[zid];
}
/*
@@ -1494,13 +1494,13 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
* close to unreclaimable. If the LRU list is empty, account
* skipped pages as a full scan.
*/
- scan += list_empty(src) ? total_skipped : total_skipped >> 2;
+ total_skipped = list_empty(src) ? skipped : skipped >> 2;
Should the tracepoint output reflect this halving heuristic or rather report the
raw data? Or is each variant inferrable from the other?
list_splice(&pages_skipped, src);
}
- *nr_scanned = scan;
+ *nr_scanned = scan + total_skipped;
trace_mm_vmscan_lru_isolate(sc->reclaim_idx, sc->order, nr_to_scan, scan,
- nr_taken, mode, is_file_lru(lru));
+ skipped, nr_taken, mode, is_file_lru(lru));
update_lru_sizes(lruvec, lru, nr_zone_taken, nr_taken);
return nr_taken;
}
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>