On Tue 09-04-13 09:08:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 02:13:13PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > TODO: remove mem_cgroup_tree_per_zone, mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zone and co.
> > but maybe it would be easier for review to remove that code in a separate
> > patch...
>
> It should be in this series, though, for the diffstat :-)
Sure thing, I just wanted to prevent from pointless work during rebasing
when this changes its shape, like all such "bug changes"
>
> > ---
> > [1] TODO: put size vmlinux before/after whole clean-up
>
> Yes!
>
> > @@ -1984,6 +2003,27 @@ static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
> > } while (memcg);
> > } while (should_continue_reclaim(zone, sc->nr_reclaimed - nr_reclaimed,
> > sc->nr_scanned - nr_scanned, sc));
> > +
> > + return nr_shrunk;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> > +static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
> > +{
> > + bool do_soft_reclaim = mem_cgroup_should_soft_reclaim(sc);
> > + unsigned long nr_scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
> > + unsigned nr_shrunk;
> > +
> > + nr_shrunk = __shrink_zone(zone, sc, do_soft_reclaim);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * No group is over the soft limit or those that are do not have
> > + * pages in the zone we are reclaiming so we have to reclaim everybody
> > + */
> > + if (do_soft_reclaim && (!nr_shrunk || sc->nr_scanned == nr_scanned)) {
>
> If no pages were scanned you are doing a second pass regardless of
> nr_shrunk. If pages were scanned, nr_shrunk must have been increased
> as well. So I think you can remove all the nr_shrunk counting and
> just check for scanned pages, no?
Yes you are right. I have started with nr_shrunk part only and then
realized that no scaning could be a problem so I've just added it. I
didn't optimize it yet.
I will remove nr_shrunk part in later versions.
Thanks
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>