Re: [PATCH 6/9] mm/compaction: rename is_via_compact_memory to compaction_with_allocation_order

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 8/15/2023 8:04 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:


on 8/15/2023 4:58 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:


On 8/5/2023 7:07 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
We have order = -1 via proactive compaction, the is_via_compact_memory is
not proper name anymore.
As cc->order informs the compaction to satisfy a allocation with that
order, so rename it to compaction_with_allocation_order.

Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
   mm/compaction.c | 11 +++++------
   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
index d8416d3dd445..b5a699ed526b 100644
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -2055,12 +2055,11 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct compact_control *cc)
   }
     /*
- * order == -1 is expected when compacting via
- * /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory
+ * compact to satisfy allocation with target order
    */
-static inline bool is_via_compact_memory(int order)
+static inline bool compaction_with_allocation_order(int order)

I know naming is hard, but this name is not good enough that can show the compaction mode. But the original one could.

Yes, I agree with this, but name and comment of is_via_compact_memory may
mislead reader that order == -1 is equivalent to compaction from
/proc/sys/vm/compact_memory.
Actually, we have several approaches to trigger compaction with order == -1:
1. via /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory
2. via /sys/devices/system/node/nodex/compact
3. via proactive compact

They can all be called proactive compaction.


Instead of indicate compaction is tirggerred by compact_memocy or anything,
order == -1 implies if compaction is triggerrred to meet allocation with high
order and we will stop compaction if allocation with target order will success.

IMO, the is_via_compact_memory() function helps people better distinguish the compaction logic we have under direct compaction or kcompactd compaction, while proactive compaction does not concern itself with these details. But compaction_with_allocation_order() will make me just wonder why we should compare with -1. So I don't think this patch is worth it, but as you said above, we can add more comments to make it more clear.

   {
-    return order == -1;
+    return order != -1;
   }
     /*
@@ -2200,7 +2199,7 @@ static enum compact_result __compact_finished(struct compact_control *cc)
           goto out;
       }
   -    if (is_via_compact_memory(cc->order))
+    if (!compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order))
           return COMPACT_CONTINUE;
         /*
@@ -2390,7 +2389,7 @@ compact_zone(struct compact_control *cc, struct capture_control *capc)
         cc->migratetype = gfp_migratetype(cc->gfp_mask);
   -    if (!is_via_compact_memory(cc->order)) {
+    if (compaction_with_allocation_order(cc->order)) {
           unsigned long watermark;
             /* Allocation can already succeed, nothing to do */





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux