On 13.02.2019 22:13, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 06:14:05PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> We know, which LRU is not active.
>
> s/,//
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktk...@virtuozzo.com>
>> ---
>> mm/vmscan.c | 10 ++++------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index 84542004a277..8d7d55e71511 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -2040,12 +2040,6 @@ static unsigned move_active_pages_to_lru(struct
>> lruvec *lruvec,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - if (!is_active_lru(lru)) {
>> - __count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_moved);
>> - count_memcg_events(lruvec_memcg(lruvec), PGDEACTIVATE,
>> - nr_moved);
>> - }
>> -
>> return nr_moved;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -2137,6 +2131,10 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long
>> nr_to_scan,
>>
>> nr_activate = move_active_pages_to_lru(lruvec, &l_active, &l_hold, lru);
>> nr_deactivate = move_active_pages_to_lru(lruvec, &l_inactive, &l_hold,
>> lru - LRU_ACTIVE);
>> +
>> + __count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_deactivate);
>> + __count_memcg_events(lruvec_memcg(lruvec), PGDEACTIVATE, nr_deactivate);
>
> Nice, you're using the irq-unsafe one since irqs are already disabled. I
> guess
> this was missed in c3cc39118c361. Do you want to insert a patch before this
> one that converts all instances of this pattern in vmscan.c over?
I had that in plan, but I'm not sure I want to do that in this patchset. Maybe,
something next later on top of this.
> There's a similar oversight in lru_lazyfree_fn with count_memcg_page_event,
> but
> that'd mean __count_memcg_page_event which is probably overkill.
