Hi Hugh, Thanks for the time and comments on this patch. On 5/17/2023 5:02 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: >> Sure, will include those range calculations for shmem pages too. > Oh, I forgot this issue, you would have liked me to look at V8 by now, > to see whether I agree with your resolution there. Sorry, no, I've > not been able to divert my concentration to it yet. > > And it's quite likely that I shall disagree, because I've a history of > disagreeing even with myself on such range widening/narrowing issues - > reconciling conflicting precedents is difficult :( > If you can at least help by commenting which part of the patch you disagree with, I can try hard to convince you there:) . >> Please let me know if I'm missing something where I should be counting >> these as NR_ISOLATED. > Please grep for NR_ISOLATED, to see where and how they get manipulated > already, and follow the existing examples. The case that sticks in my > mind is in mm/mempolicy.c, where the migrate_pages() syscall can build > up a gigantic quantity of transiently isolated pages: your syscall can > do the same, so should account for itself in the same way. I had a V8 posted without this into accounting. Let me make the changes to account for the NR_ISOLATED too. > > I'm not claiming that mm/vmscan.c's too_many_isolated(), and the way it > gets used by shrink_inactive_list(), is perfect: not at all. But please > follow existing convention. > > Sorry, that's all for now.
