On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 4:00 AM Hillf Danton <hdanton@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 23:14:05 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > -static unsigned long get_nr_to_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
> > +static bool should_abort_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
> > {
> > + int i;
> > + enum zone_watermarks mark;
> > +
> > /* don't abort memcg reclaim to ensure fairness */
> > if (!root_reclaim(sc))
> > - return -1;
> > + return false;
> >
> > - return max(sc->nr_to_reclaim, compact_gap(sc->order));
> > + if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= max(sc->nr_to_reclaim, compact_gap(sc->order)))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + /* check the order to exclude compaction-induced reclaim */
> > + if (!current_is_kswapd() || sc->order)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + mark = sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING ?
> > + WMARK_PROMO : WMARK_HIGH;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i <= sc->reclaim_idx; i++) {
> > + struct zone *zone = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones + i;
> > + unsigned long size = wmark_pages(zone, mark) + MIN_LRU_BATCH;
> > +
> > + if (managed_zone(zone) && !zone_watermark_ok(zone, 0, size, sc->reclaim_idx, 0))
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* kswapd should abort if all eligible zones are safe */
>
> This comment does not align with 86c79f6b5426
> ("mm: vmscan: do not reclaim from kswapd if there is any eligible zone").
> Any thing special here?
I don't see how they are not: they essentially say the same thing ("no
more than needed") but with different units: zones or pages. IOW,
don't reclaim from more zones or pages than needed.
