On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 12:21:16PM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:50:29AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:43:50PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > @@ -51,11 +51,20 @@
> > > > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> > > > #include <trace/events/vmscan.h>
> > > >
> > > > -enum lumpy_mode {
> > > > - LUMPY_MODE_NONE,
> > > > - LUMPY_MODE_ASYNC,
> > > > - LUMPY_MODE_SYNC,
> > > > -};
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * lumpy_mode determines how the inactive list is shrunk
> > > > + * LUMPY_MODE_SINGLE: Reclaim only order-0 pages
> > > > + * LUMPY_MODE_ASYNC: Do not block
> > > > + * LUMPY_MODE_SYNC: Allow blocking e.g. call wait_on_page_writeback
> > > > + * LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM: For high-order allocations, take a reference
> > > > + * page from the LRU and reclaim all pages within a
> > > > + * naturally aligned range
> > >
> > > I find those names terribly undescriptive. It also strikes me as an
> > > odd set of flags. Can't this be represented with less?
> > >
> > > LUMPY_MODE_ENABLED
> > > LUMPY_MODE_SYNC
> > >
> > > or, after the rename,
> > >
> > > RECLAIM_MODE_HIGHER = 1
> > > RECLAIM_MODE_SYNC = 2
> > > RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPY = 4
> > >
> >
> > My problem with that is you have to infer what the behaviour is from what the
> > flags "are not" as opposed to what they are. For example, !LUMPY_MODE_SYNC
> > implies LUMPY_MODE_ASYNC instead of specifying LUMPY_MODE_ASYNC.
>
> Sounds like a boolean value to me. And it shows: you never actually
> check for RECLAIM_MODE_ASYNC in the code, you just always set it to
> the opposite of RECLAIM_MODE_SYNC - the flag which is actually read.
>
If you insist, the ASYNC flag can be dropped. I found it easier to flag
what behaviour was expected than infer it. In retrospect, I should have
passed the flag into set_reclaim_mode() instead of a boolean and it
would have been obvious from the caller site as well.
> > It also looks very odd when trying to distinguish between order-0
> > standard reclaim, lumpy reclaim and reclaim/compaction.
>
> That is true, because this is still an actual tristate. It's probably
> better to defer until lumpy reclaim is gone and there is only one flag
> for higher-order reclaim left.
>
Sure.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>