From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753145Ab0LALVs (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:21:48 -0500 Received: from zene.cmpxchg.org ([85.214.230.12]:40994 "EHLO zene.cmpxchg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751233Ab0LALVr (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:21:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:21:16 +0100 From: Johannes Weiner To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , KOSAKI Motohiro , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] mm: vmscan: Convert lumpy_mode into a bitmask Message-ID: <20101201112116.GR15564@cmpxchg.org> References: <1290440635-30071-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1290440635-30071-3-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20101201102732.GK15564@cmpxchg.org> <20101201105029.GL13268@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101201105029.GL13268@csn.ul.ie> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:50:29AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:43:50PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > > @@ -51,11 +51,20 @@ > > > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS > > > #include > > > > > > -enum lumpy_mode { > > > - LUMPY_MODE_NONE, > > > - LUMPY_MODE_ASYNC, > > > - LUMPY_MODE_SYNC, > > > -}; > > > +/* > > > + * lumpy_mode determines how the inactive list is shrunk > > > + * LUMPY_MODE_SINGLE: Reclaim only order-0 pages > > > + * LUMPY_MODE_ASYNC: Do not block > > > + * LUMPY_MODE_SYNC: Allow blocking e.g. call wait_on_page_writeback > > > + * LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM: For high-order allocations, take a reference > > > + * page from the LRU and reclaim all pages within a > > > + * naturally aligned range > > > > I find those names terribly undescriptive. It also strikes me as an > > odd set of flags. Can't this be represented with less? > > > > LUMPY_MODE_ENABLED > > LUMPY_MODE_SYNC > > > > or, after the rename, > > > > RECLAIM_MODE_HIGHER = 1 > > RECLAIM_MODE_SYNC = 2 > > RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPY = 4 > > > > My problem with that is you have to infer what the behaviour is from what the > flags "are not" as opposed to what they are. For example, !LUMPY_MODE_SYNC > implies LUMPY_MODE_ASYNC instead of specifying LUMPY_MODE_ASYNC. Sounds like a boolean value to me. And it shows: you never actually check for RECLAIM_MODE_ASYNC in the code, you just always set it to the opposite of RECLAIM_MODE_SYNC - the flag which is actually read. > It also looks very odd when trying to distinguish between order-0 > standard reclaim, lumpy reclaim and reclaim/compaction. That is true, because this is still an actual tristate. It's probably better to defer until lumpy reclaim is gone and there is only one flag for higher-order reclaim left. > > > +typedef unsigned __bitwise__ lumpy_mode; > > > > lumpy_mode_t / reclaim_mode_t? > > > > It can't hurt! Thanks :)