On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 17:58:41 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Refactor compact_node() to handle both proactive and synchronous compact
> memory, which cleanups code a bit.
Looks good.
> + * Compact all zones within a node till each zone's fragmentation score
> + * reaches within proactive compaction thresholds (as determined by the
> + * proactiveness tunable).
> + *
> + * It is possible that the function returns before reaching score targets
> + * due to various back-off conditions, such as, contention on per-node or
> + * per-zone locks.
> + */
> +static void proactive_compact_node(pg_data_t *pgdat)
> {
> - pg_data_t *pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
> - int zoneid;
> - struct zone *zone;
> - struct compact_control cc = {
> - .order = -1,
> - .mode = MIGRATE_SYNC,
> - .ignore_skip_hint = true,
> - .whole_zone = true,
> - .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL,
> - };
> -
> -
> - for (zoneid = 0; zoneid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zoneid++) {
> -
> - zone = &pgdat->node_zones[zoneid];
> - if (!populated_zone(zone))
> - continue;
> -
> - cc.zone = zone;
> -
> - compact_zone(&cc, NULL);
> - }
> + compact_node(pgdat, true);
> }
I suggest that proactive_compact_node() be removed. Move its comment
to compact_node(), add explanation of the bool argument to that comment
and open-code the call to compact_node() at proactive_compact_node()'s
sole call site.
