Hey Johannes,
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:59:27PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi Michan,
>
> this looks pretty straight-forward to me, only one kink:
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 03:43:10PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2126,6 +2126,83 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long
> > nr_to_scan,
> > nr_deactivate, nr_rotated, sc->priority, file);
> > }
> >
> > +unsigned long reclaim_pages(struct list_head *page_list)
> > +{
> > + int nid = -1;
> > + unsigned long nr_isolated[2] = {0, };
> > + unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> > + LIST_HEAD(node_page_list);
> > + struct reclaim_stat dummy_stat;
> > + struct scan_control sc = {
> > + .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL,
> > + .priority = DEF_PRIORITY,
> > + .may_writepage = 1,
> > + .may_unmap = 1,
> > + .may_swap = 1,
> > + };
> > +
> > + while (!list_empty(page_list)) {
> > + struct page *page;
> > +
> > + page = lru_to_page(page_list);
> > + if (nid == -1) {
> > + nid = page_to_nid(page);
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&node_page_list);
> > + nr_isolated[0] = nr_isolated[1] = 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (nid == page_to_nid(page)) {
> > + list_move(&page->lru, &node_page_list);
> > + nr_isolated[!!page_is_file_cache(page)] +=
> > + hpage_nr_pages(page);
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mod_node_page_state(NODE_DATA(nid), NR_ISOLATED_ANON,
> > + nr_isolated[0]);
> > + mod_node_page_state(NODE_DATA(nid), NR_ISOLATED_FILE,
> > + nr_isolated[1]);
> > + nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&node_page_list,
> > + NODE_DATA(nid), &sc, TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS,
> > + &dummy_stat, true);
> > + while (!list_empty(&node_page_list)) {
> > + struct page *page = lru_to_page(&node_page_list);
> > +
> > + list_del(&page->lru);
> > + putback_lru_page(page);
> > + }
> > + mod_node_page_state(NODE_DATA(nid), NR_ISOLATED_ANON,
> > + -nr_isolated[0]);
> > + mod_node_page_state(NODE_DATA(nid), NR_ISOLATED_FILE,
> > + -nr_isolated[1]);
> > + nid = -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!list_empty(&node_page_list)) {
> > + mod_node_page_state(NODE_DATA(nid), NR_ISOLATED_ANON,
> > + nr_isolated[0]);
> > + mod_node_page_state(NODE_DATA(nid), NR_ISOLATED_FILE,
> > + nr_isolated[1]);
> > + nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&node_page_list,
> > + NODE_DATA(nid), &sc, TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS,
> > + &dummy_stat, true);
> > + mod_node_page_state(NODE_DATA(nid), NR_ISOLATED_ANON,
> > + -nr_isolated[0]);
> > + mod_node_page_state(NODE_DATA(nid), NR_ISOLATED_FILE,
> > + -nr_isolated[1]);
> > +
> > + while (!list_empty(&node_page_list)) {
> > + struct page *page = lru_to_page(&node_page_list);
> > +
> > + list_del(&page->lru);
> > + putback_lru_page(page);
> > + }
> > +
> > + }
>
> The NR_ISOLATED accounting, nid parsing etc. is really awkward and
> makes it hard to see what the function actually does.
>
> Can you please make those ISOLATED counters part of the isolation API?
> Your patch really shows this is an overdue cleanup.
Yeah, that was very painful.
>
> These are fast local percpu counters, we don't need the sprawling
> batching we do all over vmscan.c, migrate.c, khugepaged.c,
> compaction.c etc. Isolation can increase the counter page by page, and
> reclaim or putback can likewise decrease them one by one.
>
> It looks like mlock is the only user of the isolation api that does
> not participate in the NR_ISOLATED_* counters protocol, but I don't
> see why it wouldn't, or why doing so would hurt.
>
> There are also seem to be quite a few callsites that use the atomic
> versions of the counter API when they're clearly under the irqsafe
> lru_lock. That would be fixed automatically by this work as well.
I agree all points so will prepare clean up patch.
