lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 11/13] mm: Iterate only over charged shrinkers during memcg shrink_slab()
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 05:49:59PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> @@ -589,13 +647,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> >> .memcg = memcg,
> >> };
> >>
> >> - /*
> >> - * If kernel memory accounting is disabled, we ignore
> >> - * SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE flag and call all shrinkers
> >> - * passing NULL for memcg.
> >> - */
> >> - if (memcg_kmem_enabled() &&
> >> - !!memcg != !!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE))
> >> + if (!!memcg != !!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE))
> >> continue;
> >
> > I want this check gone. It's easy to achieve, actually - just remove the
> > following lines from shrink_node()
> >
> > if (global_reclaim(sc))
> > shrink_slab(sc->gfp_mask, pgdat->node_id, NULL,
> > sc->priority);
>
> This check is not related to the patchset.

Yes, it is. This patch modifies shrink_slab which is used only by
shrink_node. Simplifying shrink_node along the way looks right to me.

> Let's don't mix everything in the single series of patches, because
> after your last remarks it will grow at least up to 15 patches.

Most of which are trivial so I don't see any problem here.

> This patchset can't be responsible for everything.

I don't understand why you balk at simplifying the code a bit while you
are patching related functions anyway.

>
> >>
> >> if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE))
> >>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-17 06:16    [W:0.071 / U:19.804 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site