Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 07:40:25PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
>> Reclaim priorities range from 0..12(DEF_PRIORITY).
>> scan_control.priority is a 4 byte int, which is overkill.
>>
>> Since commit 6538b8ea886e ("x86_64: expand kernel stack to 16K") x86_64
>> stack overflows are not an issue. But it's inefficient to use 4 bytes
>> for priority.
>
> If you're looking to shave a few more bytes, allocation order can fit
> in a u8 too (can't be more than 6 bits, and realistically won't be more
> than 4 bits). reclaim_idx likewise will fit in a u8, and actually won't
> be more than 3 bits.
Nod. Good tip. Included in ("[PATCH v2] mm: condense scan_control").
> I am sceptical that nr_to_reclaim should really be an unsigned long; I
> don't think we should be trying to free 4 billion pages in a single call.
> nr_scanned might be over 4 billion (!) but nr_reclaimed can probably
> shrink to unsigned int along with nr_to_reclaim.
Agreed. For patch simplicity, I'll pass on this for now.
