On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:16:02PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>
>
> On 2020년 04월 22일 22:07, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:48:15PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> >> @@ -1295,11 +1295,15 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
> >> */
> >> if (page_mapped(page)) {
> >> enum ttu_flags flags = ttu_flags | TTU_BATCH_FLUSH;
> >> + bool lazyfree = PageAnon(page) && !PageSwapBacked(page);
> >>
> >> if (unlikely(PageTransHuge(page)))
> >> flags |= TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD;
> >> +
> >> if (!try_to_unmap(page, flags)) {
> >> stat->nr_unmap_fail += nr_pages;
> >> + if (lazyfree && PageSwapBacked(page))
> > This looks pretty strange, until you remember that try_to_unmap()
> > could SetPageSwapbacked again.
> >
> > This might be more obvious?
> >
> > was_swapbacked = PageSwapBacked(page);
> > if (!try_to_unmap(page, flags)) {
> > stat->nr_unmap_fail += nr_pages;
> > if (!was_swapbacked && PageSwapBacked(page))
> Hello Johannes, thank you for your comment.
>
> The name can changed from layzyfree to was_swapbacked.
> By the way, did you mean removing PageAnon(page), too? It seems to be OK, though.
I can't decide whether PageAnon() makes it clearer or not. But it's
not really needed for correctness. So feel free to keep what you had.
I would really just at least change bool lazyfree to was_lazyfree,
otherwise it seems a bit confusing. was_lazyfree makes it a bit
clearer that we expect try_to_unmap() might change the state.
> >> + stat->nr_lazyfree_fail += nr_pages;
> >> goto activate_locked;
> > Or at least was_lazyfree.
> Sorry but I'm confused.
> I think you meant additional comment to previous your comment
> rather than you wanted to rename stat->nr_lazyfree_fail to stat->was_lazyfree.
No just the bool variable, the stat one seems fine to me.
> >> @@ -1491,8 +1495,8 @@ unsigned long reclaim_clean_pages_from_list(struct zone *zone,
> >> .priority = DEF_PRIORITY,
> >> .may_unmap = 1,
> >> };
> >> - struct reclaim_stat dummy_stat;
> >> - unsigned long ret;
> >> + struct reclaim_stat stat;
> >> + unsigned long reclaimed;
> > nr_reclaimed would be better.
> I will add nr_ prefix on next patch.
Thanks!
> > I also prefer keeping dummy_stat, since that's still what it is.
> This patch uses stat.nr_lazyfree_fail, I do not understand why it is still dummy_stat.
> If you want, I will keep dummy_stat, though.
My bad, I just misread this. 'stat' makes more sense then.
