On 10/16/14 16:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> [CC list trimmed]
>
> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:35:49 AM Hui Zhu wrote:
>> Function shrink_all_memory try to free `nr_to_reclaim' of memory.
>> CMA_AGGRESSIVE_SHRINK function will call this functon to free `nr_to_reclaim' of
>> memory. It need different scan_control with current caller function
>> hibernate_preallocate_memory.
>>
>> If hibernation is true, the caller is hibernate_preallocate_memory.
>> if not, the caller is CMA alloc function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hui Zhu <zhuhui@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/linux/swap.h | 3 ++-
>> kernel/power/snapshot.c | 2 +-
>> mm/vmscan.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
>> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
>> index 37a585b..9f2cb43 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
>> @@ -335,7 +335,8 @@ extern unsigned long mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zone(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
>> gfp_t gfp_mask, bool noswap,
>> struct zone *zone,
>> unsigned long *nr_scanned);
>> -extern unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_pages);
>> +extern unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_pages,
>> + bool hibernation);
>> extern int vm_swappiness;
>> extern int remove_mapping(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page);
>> extern unsigned long vm_total_pages;
>> diff --git a/kernel/power/snapshot.c b/kernel/power/snapshot.c
>> index 791a618..a00fc35 100644
>> --- a/kernel/power/snapshot.c
>> +++ b/kernel/power/snapshot.c
>> @@ -1657,7 +1657,7 @@ int hibernate_preallocate_memory(void)
>> * NOTE: If this is not done, performance will be hurt badly in some
>> * test cases.
>> */
>> - shrink_all_memory(saveable - size);
>> + shrink_all_memory(saveable - size, true);
>
> Instead of doing this, can you please define
>
> __shrink_all_memory()
>
> that will take the appropriate struct scan_control as an argument and
> then define two wrappers around that, one for hibernation and one for CMA?
>
> The way you did it opens a field for bugs caused by passing a wrong value
> as the second argument.
Thanks Rafael.
I will update patch according to your comments.
Best,
Hui
>
>>
>> /*
>> * The number of saveable pages in memory was too high, so apply some
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index dcb4707..fdcfa30 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -3404,7 +3404,7 @@ void wakeup_kswapd(struct zone *zone, int order, enum zone_type classzone_idx)
>> wake_up_interruptible(&pgdat->kswapd_wait);
>> }
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATION
>> +#if defined CONFIG_HIBERNATION || defined CONFIG_CMA_AGGRESSIVE
>> /*
>> * Try to free `nr_to_reclaim' of memory, system-wide, and return the number of
>> * freed pages.
>> @@ -3413,22 +3413,29 @@ void wakeup_kswapd(struct zone *zone, int order, enum zone_type classzone_idx)
>> * LRU order by reclaiming preferentially
>> * inactive > active > active referenced > active mapped
>> */
>> -unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_to_reclaim)
>> +unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_to_reclaim, bool hibernation)
>> {
>> struct reclaim_state reclaim_state;
>> struct scan_control sc = {
>> .nr_to_reclaim = nr_to_reclaim,
>> - .gfp_mask = GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE,
>> .priority = DEF_PRIORITY,
>> - .may_writepage = 1,
>> .may_unmap = 1,
>> .may_swap = 1,
>> - .hibernation_mode = 1,
>> };
>> struct zonelist *zonelist = node_zonelist(numa_node_id(), sc.gfp_mask);
>> struct task_struct *p = current;
>> unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
>>
>> + if (hibernation) {
>> + sc.hibernation_mode = 1;
>> + sc.may_writepage = 1;
>> + sc.gfp_mask = GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE;
>> + } else {
>> + sc.hibernation_mode = 0;
>> + sc.may_writepage = !laptop_mode;
>> + sc.gfp_mask = GFP_USER | __GFP_MOVABLE | __GFP_HIGHMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> p->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
>> lockdep_set_current_reclaim_state(sc.gfp_mask);
>> reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
>> @@ -3442,7 +3449,7 @@ unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_to_reclaim)
>>
>> return nr_reclaimed;
>> }
>> -#endif /* CONFIG_HIBERNATION */
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_HIBERNATION || CONFIG_CMA_AGGRESSIVE */
>>
>> /* It's optimal to keep kswapds on the same CPUs as their memory, but
>> not required for correctness. So if the last cpu in a node goes
>>
>
?韬{.n???檩jg???a?旃???)钋???骅w+h?璀?ｙ/i?⒏??⒎???Щ ??m?? ?)钋???痂?^??觥??ザ?v???O璁?f??i?⒏?