From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0297E6B0026 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DCBFDB9.10209@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:33:13 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [rfc patch 2/6] vmscan: make distinction between memcg reclaim and LRU list selection References: <1305212038-15445-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <1305212038-15445-3-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> In-Reply-To: <1305212038-15445-3-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Daisuke Nishimura , Balbir Singh , Ying Han , Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Minchan Kim , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/12/2011 10:53 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > The reclaim code has a single predicate for whether it currently > reclaims on behalf of a memory cgroup, as well as whether it is > reclaiming from the global LRU list or a memory cgroup LRU list. > > Up to now, both cases always coincide, but subsequent patches will > change things such that global reclaim will scan memory cgroup lists. > > This patch adds a new predicate that tells global reclaim from memory > cgroup reclaim, and then changes all callsites that are actually about > global reclaim heuristics rather than strict LRU list selection. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > 1 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index f6b435c..ceeb2a5 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -104,8 +104,12 @@ struct scan_control { > */ > reclaim_mode_t reclaim_mode; > > - /* Which cgroup do we reclaim from */ > - struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup; > + /* > + * The memory cgroup we reclaim on behalf of, and the one we > + * are currently reclaiming from. > + */ > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg; > + struct mem_cgroup *current_memcg; I can't say I'm fond of these names. I had to read the rest of the patch to figure out that the old mem_cgroup got renamed to current_memcg. Would it be better to call them my_memcg and reclaim_memcg? Maybe somebody else has better suggestions... Other than the naming, no objection. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org