Re: [PATCH 02/09] memcg: make inactive_anon_is_low()

["KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

>> make inactive_anon_is_low for memcgroup.
>> it improve active_anon vs inactive_anon ratio balancing.
>
> The subject line of this patch seems to be truncated and the changelog
> seems bit terse. While the change may be obvious to memcg developers,
> it's not for the casual reader.

Yes, I'm wrong.
Will fix.




>> +static inline int
>> +mem_cgroup_inactive_anon_is_low(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct zone *zone)
>> +{
>> +       return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>
> An extra newline here.

Will fix.


===================================================================
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -156,6 +156,9 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
>>        unsigned long   last_oom_jiffies;
>>        int             obsolete;
>>        atomic_t        refcnt;
>> +
>> +       int inactive_ratio;
>> +
>
> Is there a reason why this is not unsigned long? A comment here
> explaining what ->inactive_ratio is used for would be nice.

Ah sorry.
the type of zone->inactive_ratio is unsigned int.

Then, I'd like to change it to unsigned int.
because difference of the global reclaim easily cause silly mistake and bug.


>> +static void mem_cgroup_set_inactive_ratio(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> +{
>> +       unsigned int gb, ratio;
>> +
>> +       gb = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_LIMIT) >> 30;
>> +       ratio = int_sqrt(10 * gb);
>
> You might want to consider adding a comment explaining what the above
> calculation is supposed to be doing.

Yes, Of cource.
Thanks.



>>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(set_limit_mutex);
>>
>>  static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>> @@ -1381,6 +1411,11 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struc
>>                                GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, false);
>>                if (!progress)                  retry_count--;
>>        }
>> +
>> +       if (!ret)
>> +               mem_cgroup_set_inactive_ratio(memcg);
>> +
>> +
>
> An extra newline here.

Will fix.


>> @@ -1423,6 +1458,7 @@ int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct
>>                if (curusage >= oldusage)
>>                        retry_count--;
>>        }
>> +
>>        return ret;
>>  }
>
> There's some diff noise here.

ditto.
thanks.