On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 01:19:59PM -0500, Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:19:40AM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
> [...]
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index d91963e2d47f..394e0dd46b2e 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -92,6 +92,11 @@ struct scan_control {
> > > unsigned long anon_cost;
> > > unsigned long file_cost;
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > > + /* Swappiness value for proactive reclaim. Always use sc_swappiness()! */
> > > + int *proactive_swappiness;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Why is proactive_swappiness still a pointer? The whole point of the
> > previous conversation is that sc->proactive can tell whether
> > sc->swappiness is valid or not, and that's less awkward than using a
> > pointer.
>
> It's the same reason as before - zero initialization ensures that the
> pointer is NULL which tells us if it's valid or not. Proactive reclaim
> might not set swappiness and you need to distinguish swappiness of 0
> and not-set. See this discussion with Michal:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/ZZUizpTWOt3gNeqR@tiehlicka/
static ssize_t memory_reclaim(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
size_t nbytes, loff_t off)
{
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(of_css(of));
unsigned int nr_retries = MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES;
unsigned long nr_to_reclaim, nr_reclaimed = 0;
+ int swappiness = -1;
...
reclaimed = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
min(nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
- GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options);
+ GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options,
+ swappiness);
...
+static int sc_swappiness(struct scan_control *sc, struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+ return sc->proactive && sc->proactive_swappiness > -1 ?
+ sc->proactive_swappiness : mem_cgroup_swappiness(memcg);
+}
