Re: [rfc patch 2/6] vmscan: make distinction between memcg reclaimand LRU list selection

From: Rik van Riel
Date: Thu May 12 2011 - 11:33:54 EST


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<hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/