On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 03:44:49PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/21/21 3:28 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > +static int nr_pcp_high(struct per_cpu_pages *pcp, struct zone *zone)
> > +{
> > + int high = READ_ONCE(pcp->high);
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(!high))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (!test_bit(ZONE_RECLAIM_ACTIVE, &zone->flags))
> > + return high;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If reclaim is active, limit the number of pages that can be
> > + * stored on pcp lists
> > + */
> > + return READ_ONCE(pcp->batch) << 2;
> > +}
>
> Should there be a sanity check on this? Let's say we had one of those
> weirdo zones with tons of CPUs and a small low_wmark_pages(). Could we
> have a case where:
>
> pcp->high < pcp->batch<<2
>
> and this effectively *raises* nr_pcp_high()?
>
> It's not possible with the current pcp->high calculation, but does
> anything prevent it now?
I don't think it would happen as pcp->batch is reduced for small zones
but a sanity check does not hurt so I added one.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
