On 10.09.20 10:31, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> 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?
Had the same thought, so +1.
>> -/*
>> - * 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.
At least I didn't really understand what "pageset_set_high() sets the
high water mark for hot per_cpu_pagelist to the value high for the
pageset p." was trying to tell me.
I think the only valuable information is the "hot", meaning it is in use
and we have to be careful when updating, right?
>>
>> 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?
Agreed, this is an actual change in the code. If this is a fix, separate
patch?
Apart from that, looks much better to me!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
