On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 06:36:24PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> - setup_pageset(&per_cpu(boot_pageset, cpu), 0);
> + setup_pageset(&per_cpu(boot_pageset, cpu));
This is not really anything important but I realized we have like 7 functions
messing with pcp lists, and everytime I try to follow them my head spins.
Since setup_pageset is only being called here, could we replace it by the
pageset_init and pageset_update?
(As I said, not important and probably a matter of taste. I just think that
having so many mini functions around is not always cool,
e.g: setup_zone_pageset->zone_pageset_init)
> -/*
> - * pageset_set_high() sets the high water mark for hot per_cpu_pagelist
> - * to the value high for the pageset p.
> - */
> -static void pageset_set_high(struct per_cpu_pageset *p,
> - unsigned long high)
> -{
> - unsigned long batch = max(1UL, high / 4);
> - if ((high / 4) > (PAGE_SHIFT * 8))
> - batch = PAGE_SHIFT * 8;
> -
> - pageset_update(&p->pcp, high, batch);
> + pageset_update(&p->pcp, 0, 1);
> }
Could we restore the comment we had in pageset_set_high, and maybe
update it to match this new function? I think it would be useful.
>
> static void pageset_set_high_and_batch(struct zone *zone,
> - struct per_cpu_pageset *pcp)
> + struct per_cpu_pageset *p)
> {
> - if (percpu_pagelist_fraction)
> - pageset_set_high(pcp,
> - (zone_managed_pages(zone) /
> - percpu_pagelist_fraction));
> - else
> - pageset_set_batch(pcp, zone_batchsize(zone));
> + unsigned long new_high;
> + unsigned long new_batch;
> + int fraction = READ_ONCE(percpu_pagelist_fraction);
Why the READ_ONCE? In case there is a parallel update so things to get
messed up?
as I said, I'd appreciate a comment in pageset_set_high_and_batch to be
restored and updated, otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
Thanks
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
