Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: add swapiness= arg to memory.reclaim

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

 



Hi Yu Zhao,

Thanks for the feedback, sorry for the delayed response.

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:31:59PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 8:27 AM Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> 
> The cover letter says:
> "Previously, this exact interface addition was proposed by Yosry[3]."
> 
> So I think it should be acknowledged with a Suggested-by, based on:
> "A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the
> person named and ensures credit to the person for the idea."
> from
> https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes

Sure, will do.

> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index d91963e2d47f..aa5666842c49 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -92,6 +92,9 @@ struct scan_control {
> >         unsigned long   anon_cost;
> >         unsigned long   file_cost;
> >
> > +       /* Swappiness value for reclaim. NULL will fall back to per-memcg/global value */
> > +       int *swappiness;
> 
> Using a pointer to indicate whether the type it points to is
> overridden isn't really a good practice.
> 
> A better alternative was suggested during the v2:
> "Perhaps the negative to avoid unnecessary dereferences."
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/dhhjw4h22q4ngwtxmhuyifv32zjd6z2relrcjgnxsw6zys3mod@o6dh5dy53ae3/

I did have a couple versions with a negative but it creates
initialization issues where every instantiation of scan_control needs
to make sure to initialize swappiness or else it will behave as if
swappiness is 0. That's pretty error prone so using the pointer seemed
the better approach.

> Since only proactive reclaim can override swappiness, meaning it only
> happens if sc->proactive is true, I think the best way to make it work
> without spending much effort is create a helper as Michal suggest but
> it should look like:
> 
> sc_swappiness()
> {
>   return sc->proactive ? sc->swappiness : mem_cgroup_swappiness(memcg);
> }
> 
> In this patchset, sc->swappiness really means
> sc->proactive_swappiness. So it should be renamed accordingly.

Helper aside, I disagree with this point about coupling with the
proactive flag. The fact that the only user currently is proactive
reclaim doesn't imply to me that the interface (in scan_control)
should be coupled to the use-case. It's easier to reason about a
swappiness field that overrides swappiness for all scans that set it
regardless of the users.




[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