From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752597AbaFPXwl (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:52:41 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:57845 "EHLO mail-pd0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751660AbaFPXwj (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:52:39 -0400 Message-ID: <1402962603.3958.36.camel@debian> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan.c: avoid recording the original scan targets in shrink_lruvec() From: Chen Yucong To: Andrew Morton Cc: mhocko@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:50:03 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20140616164237.5fcba7baaec83d509c9683e0@linux-foundation.org> References: <1402320436-22270-1-git-send-email-slaoub@gmail.com> <1402923474.3958.34.camel@debian> <20140616164237.5fcba7baaec83d509c9683e0@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:57:54 +0800 Chen Yucong wrote: > > > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 21:27 +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; > > > > > Hi Andrew Morton, > > > > I think the patch > > > > [PATCH] > > mm-vmscanc-avoid-recording-the-original-scan-targets-in-shrink_lruvec-fix.patch > > > > which I committed should be discarded. > > OK, thanks. > > I assume you're referring to > mm-vmscanc-avoid-recording-the-original-scan-targets-in-shrink_lruvec.patch > - I don't think a -fix.patch existed? Yes. the patch that should be discarded is mm-vmscanc-avoid-recording-the-original-scan-targets-in-shrink_lruvec.patch thx! cyc