From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582CD6B0260 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:28:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so146735624wib.1 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 05:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-smtp01.blacknight.com (outbound-smtp01.blacknight.com. [81.17.249.7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i2si8166077wjz.123.2015.07.23.05.28.30 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 05:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail03.blacknight.ie [81.17.254.16]) by outbound-smtp01.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0CC2983CE for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:28:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:28:28 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] mm, page_alloc: Remove unnecessary recalculations for dirty zone balancing Message-ID: <20150723122827.GB2660@techsingularity.net> References: <1437379219-9160-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.com> <1437379219-9160-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Linux-MM , Johannes Weiner , Rik van Riel , Vlastimil Babka , Pintu Kumar , Xishi Qiu , Gioh Kim , LKML On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:08:42PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > From: Mel Gorman > > > > File-backed pages that will be immediately dirtied are balanced between > > zones but it's unnecessarily expensive. Move consider_zone_balanced into > > the alloc_context instead of checking bitmaps multiple times. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > > Acked-by: David Rientjes > Thanks. > consider_zone_dirty eliminates zones over their dirty limits and > zone_dirty_ok() returns true if zones are under their dirty limits, so the > naming of both are a little strange. You might consider changing them > while you're here. Yeah, that seems sensible. I named the struct field spread_dirty_page so the relevant check now looks like if (ac->spread_dirty_page && !zone_dirty_ok(zone)) Alternative suggestions welcome but I think this is more meaningful than consider_zone_dirty was. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org