On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 08:10:51AM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 08:24 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:27:16PM +0800, Chen Yucong wrote: > > > Via https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/10/334 , we can find that recording the > > > original scan targets introduces extra 40 bytes on the stack. This patch > > > is able to avoid this situation and the call to memcpy(). At the same time, > > > it does not change the relative design idea. > > > > > > ratio = original_nr_file / original_nr_anon; > > > > > > If (nr_file > nr_anon), then ratio = (nr_file - x) / nr_anon. > > > x = nr_file - ratio * nr_anon; > > > > > > if (nr_file <= nr_anon), then ratio = nr_file / (nr_anon - x). > > > x = nr_anon - nr_file / ratio; > > > > Nice cleanup! > > > > Below one nitpick. > > > > > > > If both nr_file and nr_anon are zero, then the nr_anon could be zero > > if HugePage are reclaimed so that it could pass the below check > > > > if (nr_reclaimed < nr_to_reclaim || scan_adjusted) > > > > > The Mel Gorman's patch has already handled this situation you're > describing. It's called: > > mm: vmscan: use proportional scanning during direct reclaim and full > scan at DEF_PRIORITY It seems I was far away from vmscan.c for a while. Thanks for the pointing out. So, Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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>