On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:19 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:09 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 08:30:44 +0000 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > vmpressure is used in cgroup v1 to notify userspace of reclaim
> > > efficiency events, and is also used in both cgroup v1 and v2 as a signal
> > > for memory pressure for networking, see
> > > mem_cgroup_under_socket_pressure().
> > >
> > > Proactive reclaim intends to probe memcgs for cold memory, without
> > > affecting their performance. Hence, reclaim caused by writing to
> > > memory.reclaim should not trigger vmpressure.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -2319,6 +2319,7 @@ static unsigned long reclaim_high(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > > gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > > + unsigned int reclaim_options = MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP;
> > >
> > > do {
> > > unsigned long pflags;
> > > @@ -2331,7 +2332,8 @@ static unsigned long reclaim_high(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > >
> > > psi_memstall_enter(&pflags);
> > > nr_reclaimed += try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg, nr_pages,
> > > - gfp_mask, true);
> > > + gfp_mask,
> > > + reclaim_options);
> >
> > It's a bit irksome to create all these unneeded local variables. Why
> > not simply add the constant arg to the try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
> > call?
> >
>
> I was trying to improve readability by trying to have consistent
> reclaim_options local variable passed into
> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(), and also to avoid nested line-wrapping
> in cases where reclaim_options = MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP |
> MEMCG_RECLAIM_PROACTIVE (like in memory_reclaim()). Since you found it
> irksome, I obviously failed :)
>
> Will remove the local variables where possible and send a v4. Thanks
> for taking a look!
>
> > > psi_memstall_leave(&pflags);
> > > } while ((memcg = parent_mem_cgroup(memcg)) &&
> > > !mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg));
> > > @@ -2576,7 +2578,7 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > struct page_counter *counter;
> > > unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
> > > bool passed_oom = false;
> > > - bool may_swap = true;
> > > + unsigned int reclaim_options = MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP;
> > > bool drained = false;
> > > unsigned long pflags;
> > >
> > > @@ -2593,7 +2595,7 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_counter(counter, memory);
> > > } else {
> > > mem_over_limit = mem_cgroup_from_counter(counter, memsw);
> > > - may_swap = false;
> > > + reclaim_options &= ~MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP;
> >
> > reclaim_options = 0
> >
> > would be clearer?
> >
>
> I feel like the current code is more clear to the reader and
> future-proof. If we can't swap, we want to remove the MAY_SWAP flag,
> we don't want to remove all existing flags. In this case it's the
> same, but maybe in the future it won't be and someone will miss
> updating this line. Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion, let me know
> what you prefer for v4.
Andrew, any preferences on this before I send v4?
