Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] vmscan: separate sc.swap_cluster_max and sc.nr_max_reclaim

[Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Kosaki.
>
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:08:44 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently, sc.scap_cluster_max has double meanings.
>>
>>  1) reclaim batch size as isolate_lru_pages()'s argument
>>  2) reclaim baling out thresolds
>>
>> The two meanings pretty unrelated. Thus, Let's separate it.
>> this patch doesn't change any behavior.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
>> Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/vmscan.c |   21 +++++++++++++++------
>>  1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index f805958..6a3eb9f 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ struct scan_control {
>>       /* Number of pages freed so far during a call to shrink_zones() */
>>       unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
>>
>> +     /* How many pages shrink_list() should reclaim */
>> +     unsigned long nr_to_reclaim;
>
> If you try to divide meaning of swap_cluster_max,
> How about changing 'swap_cluster_max', too?
>
> It has a meaning which represents 'batch size'. ;)
> I hope we change it in this chance.

I see the your 4th patch 'Kill sc.swap_cluster_max' now.
It's good to me. Forget this comment. :)


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>