Re: [PATCH 1/4] memcg, mm: introduce lowlimit reclaim

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>]

On Fri 02-05-14 11:36:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-04-14 18:55:50, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index 19d620b3d69c..40e517630138 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -2808,6 +2808,29 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_lookup(unsigned short id)
> > >  	return mem_cgroup_from_id(id);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +/**
> > > + * mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible - checks whether given memcg is eligible for the
> > > + * reclaim
> > > + * @memcg: target memcg for the reclaim
> > > + * @root: root of the reclaim hierarchy (null for the global reclaim)
> > > + *
> > > + * The given group is reclaimable if it is above its low limit and the same
> > > + * applies for all parents up the hierarchy until root (including).
> > > + */
> > > +bool mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > > +		struct mem_cgroup *root)
> > 
> > Could you please rename this to something that is more descriptive in
> > the reclaim callsite?  How about mem_cgroup_within_low_limit()?
> 
> I have intentionally used somethig that is not low_limit specific. The
> generic reclaim code does't have to care about the reason why a memcg is
> not reclaimable. I agree that having follow_low_limit paramter explicit
> and mem_cgroup_reclaim_eligible not is messy. So something should be
> renamed. I would probably go with s@follow_low_limit@check_reclaim_eligible@
> but I do not have a strong preference.

What about this?
---