On 2022/4/12 8:57, ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-04-09 at 17:34 +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> LRU_UNEVICTABLE is not taken into account when shrink lruvec. So we can
>> save a bit of stack space by shrinking the array size of nr and targets
>> to NR_LRU_LISTS - 1. No functional change intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/vmscan.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index 59b96320f481..0e5818970998 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -2881,8 +2881,9 @@ static bool can_age_anon_pages(struct pglist_data *pgdat,
>>
>>
>> static void shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
>> {
>> - unsigned long nr[NR_LRU_LISTS];
>> - unsigned long targets[NR_LRU_LISTS];
>> + /* LRU_UNEVICTABLE is not taken into account. */
>> + unsigned long nr[NR_LRU_LISTS - 1];
>> + unsigned long targets[NR_LRU_LISTS - 1];
>> unsigned long nr_to_scan;
>> enum lru_list lru;
>> unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
>
> As Christoph pointed out, this is hacky without much benefit. Please
> drop this patch.
Will drop this patch. Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
> .
>
