Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] mm: vmscan: refactor updating current->reclaim_state

[Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:01 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 04:29:43AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 4:21 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 13.04.23 12:40, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > During reclaim, we keep track of pages reclaimed from other means than
> > > > LRU-based reclaim through scan_control->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab,
> > > > which we stash a pointer to in current task_struct.
> > > >
> > > > However, we keep track of more than just reclaimed slab pages through
> > > > this. We also use it for clean file pages dropped through pruned inodes,
> > > > and xfs buffer pages freed. Rename reclaimed_slab to reclaimed, and add
> > >
> > > Would "reclaimed_non_lru" be more expressive? Then,
> > >
> > > mm_account_reclaimed_pages() -> mm_account_non_lru_reclaimed_pages()
> > >
> > >
> > > Apart from that LGTM.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > I suck at naming things. If you think "reclaimed_non_lru" is better,
> > then we can do that. FWIW mm_account_reclaimed_pages() was taken from
> > a suggestion from Dave Chinner. My initial version had a terrible
> > name: report_freed_pages(), so I am happy with whatever you see fit.
> >
> > Should I re-spin for this or can we change it in place?
>
> I don't care for the noise all the bikeshed painting has generated
> for a simple change like this.  If it's a fix for a bug, and the
> naming is good enough, just merge it already, ok?

Sorry for all the noise. I think this version is in good enough shape.

Andrew, could you please replace v4 with this v6 without patch 2 as
multiple people pointed out that it is unneeded? Sorry for the hassle.

>
> -Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com