On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:01 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 04:29:43AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 4:21 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 13.04.23 12:40, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > > > During reclaim, we keep track of pages reclaimed from other means than > > > > LRU-based reclaim through scan_control->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab, > > > > which we stash a pointer to in current task_struct. > > > > > > > > However, we keep track of more than just reclaimed slab pages through > > > > this. We also use it for clean file pages dropped through pruned inodes, > > > > and xfs buffer pages freed. Rename reclaimed_slab to reclaimed, and add > > > > > > Would "reclaimed_non_lru" be more expressive? Then, > > > > > > mm_account_reclaimed_pages() -> mm_account_non_lru_reclaimed_pages() > > > > > > > > > Apart from that LGTM. > > > > Thanks! > > > > I suck at naming things. If you think "reclaimed_non_lru" is better, > > then we can do that. FWIW mm_account_reclaimed_pages() was taken from > > a suggestion from Dave Chinner. My initial version had a terrible > > name: report_freed_pages(), so I am happy with whatever you see fit. > > > > Should I re-spin for this or can we change it in place? > > I don't care for the noise all the bikeshed painting has generated > for a simple change like this. If it's a fix for a bug, and the > naming is good enough, just merge it already, ok? Sorry for all the noise. I think this version is in good enough shape. Andrew, could you please replace v4 with this v6 without patch 2 as multiple people pointed out that it is unneeded? Sorry for the hassle. > > -Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
