Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:53:44 +0400
Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patchset depends on Johannes Weiner's patch
"mm: memcg: count pte references from every member of the reclaimed
hierarchy".
bloat-o-meter delta for patches 2..12
add/remove: 6/6 grow/shrink: 6/14 up/down: 4414/-4625 (-211)
That's the sole effect and intent of the patchset? To save 211 bytes?
I am surprised it's not more: it feels like more.
This is almost last bunch of cleanups for lru_lock splitting,
code reducing is only nice side-effect.
Also this patchset removes many redundant lruvec relookups.
Now mostly all page-to-lruvec translations are located at the same level
as zone->lru_lock locking. So lru-lock splitting patchset can something like
this:
-zone = page_zone(page)
-spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock)
-lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page)
+lruvec = lock_page_lruvec_irq(page)
...
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 16 +--
include/linux/mmzone.h | 14 ++
mm/memcontrol.c | 33 +++--
mm/mmzone.c | 14 ++
mm/page_alloc.c | 8 -
mm/vmscan.c | 277
++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
6 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 185 deletions(-)
If so, I'm not sure that it is worth the risk and effort?
I'm pretty sure that it is worth the effort, and see very little risk.
It's close to my "[PATCH 3/10] mm/memcg: add zone pointer into lruvec"
posted 20 Feb (after Konstantin posted his set a few days earlier),
which Kamezawa-san Acked with "I like this cleanup". But this goes
a little further (e.g. 01/12 saving an arg by moving priority into sc,
that's nice; and v2 05/12 removing update_isolated_counts(), great).
Konstantin and I came independently to this simplification, or
generalization, from zone to lruvec: we're confident that it is the
right direction, that it's a good basis for further work. Certainly
neither of us have yet posted numbers to justify per-memcg per-zone
locking (and I expect split zone locking to need more justification
than it's had); but we both think these patches are a worthwhile
cleanup on their own.
I don't think it was particularly useful to split this into all of
12 pieces! But never mind, that's a trivial detail, not worth undoing.
There's a few by-the-by bits and pieces I liked in my version that are
not here, but nothing important: if I care enough, I can always send a
little cleanup afterwards.
The only change I'd ask for is in the commit comment on 02/12: it
puzzlingly says "page_zone()" where it means to say "lruvec_zone()".
I think if I'd been doing 04/12, I'd have resented passing "zone" to
shrink_page_list(), would have deleted its VM_BUG_ON, and used a
page_zone() for ZONE_CONGESTED: but that's just me being mean.
We already know which zone we scan, why you prefer to re-lookup it via
page's reference? And which page you will choose for that? There are many of them. =)
I've gone through and compared the result of these 12 against my own
tree updated to next-20120427. We come out much the same: the only
divergence which worried me was that my mem_cgroup_zone_lruvec() says
IF (!memcg || mem_cgroup_disabled())
return&zone->lruvec;
and although I'm sure I had a reason for adding that "!memcg || ",
I cannot now see why. Maybe it was for some intermediate use that went
away (but I mention it in the hope that Konstantin will double check).
memcg can be null here if and only if mem_cgroup_disabled()
After this patchset mem_cgroup_zone_lruvec() is used only in few places,
usually right after mem_cgroup_iter(), so proof is trivial.
To each one of the 12 (with lruvec_zone in 02/12, and v2 of 05/12):
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks =)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>